Slashdot Mirror


RF-Blocking Wallpaper

spitefulcrow writes "Silicon.com is reporting on a new application for RF-absorbing materials: Wallpaper that blocks Wi-Fi. BAE, the British defense contractor, has announced that the same material used to foil radar by stealth bombers can be used to selectively block certain frequencies and prevent wireless networking signals from entering or exiting a building. Is this the next take on lining the walls with lead?"

344 comments

  1. Wallpaper hats! by liamo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Tinfoil is just so passee these days.

    1. Re:Wallpaper hats! by twoslice · · Score: 1, Funny

      You're telling me! the haven't made tinfoil out of actual tin for years, it's all aluminium. Some poor dudes who don't know this little tidbit are 0wn3d and they don't suspect a thing...

      --

      From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
    2. Re:Wallpaper hats! by freeduke · · Score: 3, Funny
      Finally, I would prefer "wallpaper" underwear... In case all these RF are leading us to infertility, I would build a new branch of our societies!

      Remenber: always put your cell phone in your pant's pocket!

    3. Re:Wallpaper hats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make clothes and we can forget about RFID in our underwear

    4. Re:Wallpaper hats! by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      Just make sure it's not the self-sticking kind... Ow.

  2. I know it's not tin foil, but.... by orthogonal · · Score: 2, Funny

    a new application for RF-absorbing materials: Wallpaper that blocks Wi-Fi.

    Ok, I know it's not tin foil....

    But the important question is, can I use it to make a hat?

    1. Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... by Fishstick · · Score: 5, Funny
      Not nearly as effective or attractive as aluminum. ;-P

      Aluminum is the perfect medium for constructing an AFDB
      1. Get a five foot sheet of aluminum foil (standard one foot wide Reynolds Wrap brand will do nicely.)
      2. Fold the sheet four times into five equal segments so that you end up with a 1x1 foot square, making sure that you fold over the dull side of the foil leaving the square shiny* on both sides.
      3. Use scissors to cut from one corner of the square to the center, making a straight line.
      4. Bend the foil from one side of the cut under the other, making a slight cone. Again, make sure that the outside of the cone has a shiny side of the foil; this is VERY important.
      5. Place the cone on your head and squash the top and sides to make it fit snugly.
      6. Apply Scotch tape liberally making sure to secure the cut in the foil and any form-fitting creases made in step 5.
      7. Use more tape to secure AFDB to your cranium.

      *A Note About The Shiny Side:
      It can't be stressed enough how important it is to have the shiny side pointing out. This is needed because the shiny side is most reflective to psychotronic radiation, while the dull side can actually, in certain environmental conditions, absorb it. However, as is illustrated in the instructions above, it is also wise to complement this with a layer of foil pointing shiny side in. This will keep your brain waves, which are also reflected by the shiny side, from being picked up by mind-reading equipment. There is a small number of aluminum foil researchers who believe that this may cause an alpha-wave harmonic to build up in the skull resulting in memory loss or pseudo-religious visions, but their findings have never been replicated by the aluminum foil research community at large. Even if their findings are validated, the risk involved is small compared to the potential of mind-intrusion.
      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    2. Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      For Linux users, MindGuard, free software that turns your computer into an effective mind control ray jammer!

      MindGuard is a program for Amiga and Linux computers that protects your mind by actively jamming and/or scrambling psychotronic mind-control signals and removing harmful engrammic pollutants from your brain. It also has the ability to scan for and decipher into English specific signals so you can see exactly Who wants to control you and what They are trying to make you think.

      MindGuard works by leveraging your computer's aluminum-based innards to both detect and emit psychotronic energy using advanced quasi-quantum techniques. Once a mind-control signal is identified and analyzed, MindGuard can generate a specially tuned anti-signal that will jam the incomming signal. If MindGuard is unable to properly identify the signal, it will generate psychotronic white noise to ensure the signal's harmful message is scrambled.

    3. Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... by i+chose+quality · · Score: 2, Funny

      a...l...u...m...i...n...i...u...m

      please!

      --
      the computer is online
      i am not at it
      what a waste of ressources
    4. Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... by Fishstick · · Score: 5, Informative
      RTFWS:

      * FOOTNOTE: The American spelling** of aluminum is used here. If you are searching for more information on aluminum, be aware that the British spell it "aluminium" (and pronounce it accordingly).

      ** HISTORICAL FOOTNOTE: Aluminum was originally named "alumium" by Sir Humphry Davy, who later changed it to "aluminum" (perhaps in an attempt to make it more Latinized since alumen is Latin for alum, the aluminum compound that the name is derived from). The British (and allied English speakers) shortly thereafter changed the name once more, this time to "aluminium" so that it would again match the pattern of most other elements (helium, sodium, etc.), while the North Americans eventually decided to keep the second, slightly more traditional name. I predict that North Americans will adopt the more regular "-ium" spelling by the year 2050, prompting the British to start calling it "alumininium". At that point debate can begin on changing "platinum" to "platinium"

      ;-)

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    5. Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... by Lord+Prox · · Score: 2, Funny

      You can keep your hat, I'm going to stealth out my DIY cruise missile...

      On second thought, I'm going to need a hat too.

    6. Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then there's the rest of the world: in Dutch it is also spelled and pronounced aluminium, French the same. I don't know any language that spells it "aluminum".

    7. Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In italian it is spelled "alluminio", and in portuguese and spanish "aluminio". The american spelling is probably the only one without the "ium" or derivatives suffix.

    8. Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... by Deadstick · · Score: 4, Informative
      match the pattern of most other elements (helium, sodium, etc.)

      The pattern of most other metals, not most other elements. Every element ending in -ium is a metal except helium. The latter was first observed on the sun, via spectrometry, and was believed to be a metal, so it was named "sun metal" in Latin. By the time it was found on earth, it was too late to change the name.

      rj

    9. Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but it doesn't work on copper based CPUs. The corpogovernment conspired to make programs like this ineffective by changing CPU design from aluminum to copper. Thankfully is still have an old Pentium 2 box that I run this program on.

    10. Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... by wiresquire · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That's close. According to Chemical Division of Los Alamos National Labs, the history of alumin(i)um is:

      (L. alumen: alum) The ancient Greeks and Romans used alum as an astringent and as a mordant in dyeing. In 1761 de Morveau proposed the name alumine for the base in alum, and Lavoisier, in 1787, thought this to be the oxide of a still undiscovered metal.

      Wohler is generally credited with having isolated the metal in 1827, although an impure form was prepared by Oersted two years earlier. In 1807, Davy proposed the name aluminum for the metal, undiscovered at that time, and later agreed to change it to aluminum. Shortly thereafter, the name aluminium was adopted to conform with the "ium" ending of most elements, and this spelling is now in use elsewhere in the world.

      Aluminium was also the accepted spelling in the U.S. until 1925, at which time the American Chemical Society officially decided to use the name aluminum thereafter in their publications.

      So it changed in the 1920's. I guess all that Charlston'ing went to people's heads.

      --

      So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?

    11. Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... by gwjgwj · · Score: 1

      It's aluminium in Polish.

    12. Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Interesting, but what made them assume it was a metal?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    13. Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Informative

      For trivia buffs: The reason aluminum foil has a shiny side and a flatter side is that it is rolled into shape. The process involves passing what starts as an ingot through many sets of rollers, each set spaced closer together than the last. When the rollers get very close, they tend to flatten out against each other and jam. Someone had the bright idea to fold two sheets together and run them both through the last set of rollers at once, then peel them apart. Thes lets the last set of rollers be spaced as far apart as the next-to-last set. Nowdays, it is likely that precision controllers and better manufacturing tolerances would let us make aluminum foil with both sides shiny, but why bother?
      Don't get me started about Oreo cookies and what the little points are for.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    14. Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... by __aagctu1952 · · Score: 3, Informative
      The pattern of most other metals, not most other elements. Every element ending in -ium is a metal except helium. The latter was first observed on the sun, via spectrometry, and was believed to be a metal, so it was named "sun metal" in Latin. By the time it was found on earth, it was too late to change the name.

      -ium vs -um in Latin doesn't have anything to do with the elements being metals or not. Just look at the names of the different elements and you'll see a heap of non-metals ending in -ium: Hydrogenium, Oxygenium, Nitrogenium...
      while just as many, or even more, metals end in just -um: Ferrum, Cuprum, Plumbum, Hydragurum, Aurum...

    15. Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... by AndrewASmith · · Score: 1

      Technically speaking, if your shiny side is reflecting signals then "they" can use that reflection to monitor your location by interpreting the signals that bounce back. Thus you should also fold another layer on the outside with the dull side facing out so it absorbs signals without reflecting them.

    16. Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... by Trigulus · · Score: 0

      All I have is the non-stick kind and it keeps sliding off my head! If I only had enough for a chin-strap.

      --
      If something exists that does not need a creator (god) then why must the cosmos need one?
    17. Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... by Trigulus · · Score: 0

      You must never EVER! put the foil shiny to shiny as this will cause the mother of all mind-fuck feedback loops!

      --
      If something exists that does not need a creator (god) then why must the cosmos need one?
    18. Re:I know it's not tin foil, but.... by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      that's what the cellophane tape is for!

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

  3. Tinfoil hat brigade? by CdBee · · Score: 0, Redundant

    We hear a lot about the need for tinfoil hats - it looks like that problem just got a modern-day solution.

    Bet it kills mobile phones too, though.

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    1. Re:Tinfoil hat brigade? by CdBee · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh Noes!

      Three people made the same joke in the same minute. This sucks. I am no longer original. Ahh sod it, I'm going streaking. Nobody else can have thought of that....

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    2. Re:Tinfoil hat brigade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Three people made the same joke in the same minute. This sucks. I am no longer original. Ahh sod it, I'm going streaking. Nobody else can have thought of that....

      The cries of distress as another geek suddenly realises that his talented mind has been brainwashed by the cult of Slashdot . . . :)

    3. Re:Tinfoil hat brigade? by josh3736 · · Score: 1
      We're going streaking!

      Through the quad!!!

      Everybody's doing it!

      They're all behind me! C'mon, honey! Everybody's doing it!

    4. Re:Tinfoil hat brigade? by ProKras · · Score: 1

      You mean, you're going to be NAKED? You are going OUTSIDE without a single piece of FOIL covering your body? And they call ME crazy.

  4. Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real people by Bender_ · · Score: 3, Interesting


    Ok, its nice. This wallpaper blocks a lot of RF radation. This means that you can not use WLAN, cellphones and terrestrial TV/Radio. Is this really what you want?

  5. Can I make a hat out of it? by kclittle · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Tin foil is so, well, passe. Some bright stripes, or maybe some flowers, would be soooo chic.

    --
    Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
  6. I'm really busy by isoprophlex · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I will be wonderful when the adhear this technology in movie cinemas so that the wankers sitting behind me who answer there phones during the films, can't take their "important calls".

    1. Re:I'm really busy by arcade · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh how I would love that application of it in Norway. Unfortunately it's not allowed. The "problem" with this solution is that if there happens an accident - one "should" be able to call the norwegian equivalent of 911.

      I think it sucks too.

      --
      "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
    2. Re:I'm really busy by Barbarian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So place a red phone in every theatre with a low-level lit sign to show everyone where it is in an emergency.

    3. Re:I'm really busy by betelgeuse-4 · · Score: 1

      Simple solution, install a landline phone in the cinema, so that a cinema worker can be contacted easily and they can arrange whatever help is needed.

    4. Re:I'm really busy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Most people are capable of putting their mobile into silent mode. It's just the rude people who forget or don't want to.

      Many people need to be contactable as part of their job. Do you want to exclude these people from the cinema completely?

    5. Re:I'm really busy by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Many people need to be contactable as part of their job. Do you want to exclude these people from the cinema completely?

      If being contactable means they have to spoil everyone else's enjoyment of the film, then...

      Yes. Absolutely. I want to exclude these people from the cinema completely.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    6. Re:I'm really busy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Phones have a vibrate mode for more than sexual pleasure. people should use it!!

    7. Re:I'm really busy by TVC15 · · Score: 1

      >Unfortunately it's not allowed [in Norway].

      i dont know about norway but in the US it would be illegal to block using jamming devices pretty much for the same reason (that and the spectrum is licenced to someone else). however, i dont see any problems with installing this wallpaper here. after all, they cant keep someone from building a building with materials that would block RF 'normally'. can they really keep someone from building a lead house in norway? or at least lead lined rooms?

    8. Re:I'm really busy by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you can't wait for the cinemas to install this technology, swift application of a roll of duct-tape (to the heads of cell phone users) will also work.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    9. Re:I'm really busy by aflat362 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I agree that cell phones are abused way too often. (Jerks taking useless calls in a theater is a prime example)

      However, we should never block cell phone reception anywhere.

      What if a doctor were to go watch a movie and one of his patients started dying and he needed to be contacted? What if a loved one were in an accident and people were trying to get ahold of you so you could possibly see them before they died?

      There are many scenarios where having cell reception is important.

      Just try to use the vibrate or silent mode. I can deal with people forgetting to turn their phones off in a movie (though I myself have the courtesy to turn mine off), as long as they don't yack on them in the theater.

      --

      Conserve Oil, Recycle, Boycott Walmart

    10. Re:I'm really busy by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      Good job. Now you have every stupid kid calling the cops with a roomful of suspects, and no lights to ID the perp.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    11. Re:I'm really busy by isoprophlex · · Score: 1

      If your job is so important, then i guess "All work and no play makes Joe a dull boy" applies here for you. Serriosely if you job requires your assistance even when your in a cinema... and you can't escape for a measly 2 hours, get a new job.

    12. Re:I'm really busy by binarybum · · Score: 1

      night vision camera on the phone.

      --
      ôó
    13. Re:I'm really busy by isoprophlex · · Score: 0, Troll

      Boycott Walmart - Recycle - Vote Bush out of office in 04 Boycot Life - Sell your trash - Vote Hilter

    14. Re:I'm really busy by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Serriosely if you job requires your assistance even when your in a cinema... and you can't escape for a measly 2 hours, get a new job.

      I'm a parent.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    15. Re:I'm really busy by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      I doubt it would be illegal anywhere, as long as the place was not a "required" building and it was posted that your cellphones could not work inside. Wallpapering someone elses house, yes illegal. Not informing people that RF is blocked, yes. Public buildings, like courthouses, etc., maybe. But a theatre is a privately owned building.

      If I tell you that you must remove your shoes before you enter my home, I have every right to do so, and you have every right to choose to not enter my home. Same thing. No one is requiring you to enter a movie theatre. Personally, I would gladly pay an extra $1 to go to a theatre if I knew that cell phones could not work inside.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    16. Re:I'm really busy by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What if a doctor were to go watch a movie and one of his patients started dying and he needed to be contacted?

      He's a doctor - don't you think he can choose a theater that isn't blocked or -GASP!- watch something at home?

      What if a loved one were in an accident and people were trying to get ahold of you so you could possibly see them before they died?

      So, I should be subjected to people talking on their phones on the off chance that something tragic might require a phone call? Get some perspective - the odds of an hour making that sort of difference while at the same time leaving you sufficient time to actually et there are remote in the extreme.

      There are many scenarios where having cell reception is important.

      Not nearly as many as you think. Most of the situations where you think it's important are actually just situations where it's convenient. You wouldn't even consider contacting someone if you didn't think it was easy.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    17. Re:I'm really busy by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm a parent.

      And for the first 5 years or so, you won't be able to go out very much. If you're worried about junior swallowing bleach when the babysitter isn't looking, then perhaps you should choose an activity that is easy to interrupt. Personally, I like the idea of RF blocked theaters. If you don't, then don't go there.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    18. Re:I'm really busy by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

      I really hate having to agree with you. I mean, those people could have put their phones on vibrate with no problem, and not ruined the movie for everyone else. They (as a group) didn't, so now we need some more drastic means of enforcing the silence

    19. Re:I'm really busy by nacturation · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What if a doctor were to go watch a movie and one of his patients started dying and he needed to be contacted? What if a loved one were in an accident and people were trying to get ahold of you so you could possibly see them before they died?

      There are many scenarios where having cell reception is important.


      Man, what *did* people do before cell phones? Give out the public number to the theatre/opera/amusement park/restaurant/stadium's land line and have an employee come and get them if they got a call?

      Actually, an interesting note is that some classy restaurants offer this as a service. They ask you to forward your cell phone to a special number, let them know your name and where you're sitting, and the restaurant staff picks up the call and comes and gets you. "Excuse me, Mr. Smith, but you have a call. This way please..."

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    20. Re:I'm really busy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can tune this paper to certain frequencies, right? Make 999's a different frequencies.

      Yeah, I know. Never gonna happen.

    21. Re:I'm really busy by AmunRa · · Score: 2, Informative

      What about if the doctor went to the cinema and the local cell transmitter went down? Cell-phones have no SLA (service level agreement), so a doctor has no guarantee that he will get service in the cinema anyway.
      Plus when I worked in a cinema here in the UK, we had a scren that was underground, and you couldn't get reception there _ever_!

      The way I see it, if a cinema puts up a notice saying that cellphones are not allowed in the auditorium, then there's nothing wrong with them using technology to inforce it - it's no different than having the usher(s) kick people out that use them.

      --
      " To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research. "
    22. Re:I'm really busy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      don't you think he can choose a theater that isn't blocked or -GASP!- watch something at home?

      He wouldn't be able to pick an unblocked theater for the same reason you can't pick a blocked one today. And why can't YOU stay at home?

      So, I should be subjected to people talking on their phones

      Does this often happen in a place where people aren't otherwise allowed to talk? And if this annoys you, how often do you ask them to shut up?

    23. Re:I'm really busy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or what if Jodi breaks up with her boyfriend Brad and Sally can't call me to tell me so I can get rid of this loser Ted before the next football game? If I can't have my cell phone on in a theatre or hospital, I will probably end up marrying Ted or just jumping from guy to guy my whole life. Brad is such a hunk of tasty meat.

      Signed, Katelyn

    24. Re:I'm really busy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "...in movie cinemas so that the wankers sitting behind me..."

      Wrong sort of cinema...

    25. Re:I'm really busy by hugzz · · Score: 1

      People managed to live before cell phones were commonplace

    26. Re:I'm really busy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, then fucking stay home and rent.

    27. Re:I'm really busy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By being a parent you decided that you're not going to be able to do all of the activities you did when you weren't a parent. Deal with it. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $10 to go to a movie and have ANYONE yack on their phone during it.

    28. Re:I'm really busy by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      And why can't YOU stay at home?

      That's not the point. If a theater chooses to shield their theaters so that I can watch a movie in peace, that's their perogative. The doctor can go somewhere else.

      Does this often happen in a place where people aren't otherwise allowed to talk?

      Yes. People are rather rude in the dark, and will happily chat on the phone while a movie is going.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    29. Re:I'm really busy by EnglishTim · · Score: 2

      I'm a parent

      Yeah, me too, but that's no excuse to leave your phone on in a theatre.

      If you feel you must have it on, put it on silent and vibrate. If your phone won't do that - tough. Buy a new one.

      Also, even if you do get a phone call, don't talk until you've got out of the theatre.

      You need to set a good example to your kids of good manners...

    30. Re:I'm really busy by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      People have been parents for millenia before the cell phone was invented and did just fine or we would not be here.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    31. Re:I'm really busy by Jardine · · Score: 1

      So place a red phone in every theatre with a low-level lit sign to show everyone where it is in an emergency.

      Or put a payphone out in the lobby.

    32. Re:I'm really busy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, I don't really see how wallpaper in the cinemas will be stopping any "wankers." I mean seiously, do you think Paul Reuben wouldn't have gotten in touch with his meat missle had there been different wallpaper!?!?

      Wait a second, you're British, aren't you?

      Oh, sorry about that. Please ignore.

    33. Re:I'm really busy by jc42 · · Score: 1

      The way I see it, if a cinema puts up a notice saying that cellphones are not allowed in the auditorium, then there's nothing wrong with them using technology to inforce it - it's no different than having the usher(s) kick people out that use them.

      Well, that may be the way you see it, but that's not the way very many courts are going to see it.

      Suppose there were a medical emergency in the theater, a doctor attempted to come to the person's aid, and the ushers kicked the doctor out. You can bet there would be a court case, and the theater would lose badly.

      Similarly, such blocking may well end in many places the first time there's a medical emergency, a doctor is present who attempts to call for an ambulance, the call doesn't go through because of blocking, and the person dies.

      This isn't a parallel with a cell-phone relay going down. The legal system may well consider that an "act of God", unless the prosecution can show the phone company was actually at fault. But if the building's owners have installed cell-phone blocking, that is not an act of God; it's an act of the building owners. Unlike God, they can be held responsible for their actions.

      Yeah, we're all annoyed by people talking on cell phones. Many people are also very annoyed when they have to pull over to let an ambulance get by. No court is going to consider your annoyance relevant. If you block an ambulance and a person dies, you are in serious trouble. This could well be the legal situation with cell phones in the near future.

      It may not even require a blocked phone call. We are now seeing wearable medical nonitoring gadgets that can automatically contact the hospital when measurements go out of bounds. These use cell-phone and/or wifi protocols for their data. A likely scenario is a medical emergency in a theater or restaurant, the person's monitor attempts to call the hospital, the connection fails, and the person silently dies. The inquest determines that the connection fails because it was blocked by equipment in the building, and that blocking was the primary purpose of the equipment. The owner of that equipment is charged with negligent homicide.

      It'll be an interesting court case. And the outcome may be different in different jurisdictions. But it's coming soon.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    34. Re:I'm really busy by rk · · Score: 1
      What if a doctor were to go watch a movie and one of his patients started dying and he needed to be contacted? What if a loved one were in an accident and people were trying to get ahold of you so you could possibly see them before they died?

      GASP! Then it would be like.... living in the dark ages of the late 1980s! You might have to call the on-call doctor at your doctor's practice and not get your personal family physician in a life or death emergency! You might actually have to live your life and not be constantly at the beck and call with everyone with your number.

      Cheese and rice, people, society functioned fairly well for many years before cell phones. I don't deny they're useful, but if someone wants to block cell phone reception in their place of business, I say let them, though common courtesy (all things being equal, "common courtesy" just isn't that common anymore) would suggest a business would annouce that. Don't like it? Don't go to that establishment.

    35. Re:I'm really busy by Bagheera · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree that cell phones are abused way too often. (Jerks taking useless calls in a theater is a prime example)

      Yes, I think we all agree on that.

      However, we should never block cell phone reception anywhere.

      Bullshit. We should never block reception EVERYwhere I can agree with, but not ever anywhere.

      There are some places where it is simply inappropriate to even HAVE a cell phone. Say, an operating suite? Do you REALLY want the RFI, or someone distracted by a call while you're on the slab?

      No? Didn't think so.

      What if a doctor were to go watch a movie and one of his patients started dying and he needed to be contacted? What if a loved one were in an accident and people were trying to get ahold of you so you could possibly see them before they died?

      Honestly? My personal emergency doesn't give me the right to inconvenience 300 other people. If it was ONLY emergency calls, then we could accept it. But it's not. It's crap calls. Blocking the one in a million honest emergencies to block the 99.999% crap?

      Where's my wallpaper paste.

      There are many scenarios where having cell reception is important.

      Yes, there are. There are also many situations where not having cell phone reception is a matter of "enforced common courtesy."

      The idea that because we have always on communications means we need always on communications needs to stop.

      Just try to use the vibrate or silent mode. I can deal with people forgetting to turn their phones off in a movie (though I myself have the courtesy to turn mine off), as long as they don't yack on them in the theater.

      Yes. We agree. But how does that change the fact that MOST people don't bother? Sorry, if Heir Doktor can't be out of touch for a couple of hours, then maybe he shouldn't be going to the theater.

      He accepted the responsibility. That doesn't mean he gets to impose it on the rest of us.

      --
      Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
    36. Re:I'm really busy by mcc · · Score: 1

      Man, what *did* people do before cell phones? Give out the public number to the theatre/opera/amusement park/restaurant/stadium's land line and have an employee come and get them if they got a call?

      Well, if they were doctors, they used pagers. Doctors were among the first to adopt that technology.

      If you're asking how on-call doctors functioned before pagers, I have no idea. I assume they just sat at home by the phone all day.

    37. Re:I'm really busy by trippy · · Score: 1

      There is more than one doctor in this world and if they are in a remote area where there is only one doctor, i doubt they have a theater.

      As for the other situations, I dont think that the time spent inside is going to cause that much of a disturbance. Getting through traffic could be just as bad. Some places need to be quiet, like theaters, church (yes i have seen people use cell phones during the service)airplanes, and class.

      Seeing that some people forget small children in cars on hot days, i would not trust them to turn off a ringer.

    38. Re:I'm really busy by swillden · · Score: 1

      If you feel you must have it on, put it on silent and vibrate

      Actually, I put it on silent and non-vibrate. I put it in the cup holder on the seat and if the phone vibrated against that it would probably be noisy.

      I'm very considerate of others' movie-going experience and have never disturbed anyone by letting my phone ring audibly, much less by taking a call.

      So why should the theaters block RF signals and penalize me for the fact that others are less considerate? This is a social problem. Throw popcorn at people whose phones ring during the movie. Throw Coke at people who answer them. Problem solved!

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    39. Re:I'm really busy by NegativeK · · Score: 1

      However, we should never block cell phone reception anywhere.

      Why can't we let businesses decide on their own atmosphere? All they have to do is put a sign up that says "Cell phones will NOT work in this building." Problem solved. If people don't want to watch a movie in a cell-phoneless theatre, they can just go to a theatre that allows them.
      Letting people decide via business choices as opposed to through legislation can provide a balance of freedom for both the customer and the business.

      --
      This statement is false.
    40. Re:I'm really busy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prior to pagers the concept of an "on-call" doctor wasn't around. You called the local doctor's office or home in rural areas, and hoped they answered. In urban areas, you called the nearest hospital. Go back a couple more decades, and you would have had to send someone running to find the doctor, since most people didn't have phones before the 1930's. In many parts of the world, you still have to send someone running, since phones are hard to find for about half the world's population.

    41. Re:I'm really busy by AmunRa · · Score: 1

      Well I refer back to the underground cinema screen with _no_ reception - is the doctor/ user of a medical monitor going to sue becuase their phone didn't work? If so then something is definitely wrong.

      The example that everyone uses of a doctor is bogus really - if a doctor is on call then they have to be able to take that call - if a cinema puts up a notice - publicly in the lobby before you go in - saying mobiles are not permitted, then they have evey right to enforce that policy in their own cinema - if the doctor doesn't like it then they can go to another cinema.

      The blocking of mobiles in non-public places such as cinemas, theatres and the like is up to the owner of the cinema etc. It's just like any other conditions of sale such as no smoking - no-one is forcing you to go to that cinema and have your phone blocked, it's just that if you do, then that's what will happen.

      The nature of supply and demand wil then determine if these mesaures are sucessful or not - if people don't want to have their phone blocked in a cinema, then they will go to another. However, I know at least one person that would patronise such a cinema.

      --
      " To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research. "
    42. Re:I'm really busy by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      What if a doctor were to go watch a movie and one of his patients started dying and he needed to be contacted?

      Presumably the doctor has someone else to cover for him while he is not on duty. If he is on duty or on call, then perhaps he should not be in a movie theatre? Besides, who has the right to say doctor's can accept calls during a movie but nobody else?

      Just try to use the vibrate or silent mode.

      Yes, but I don't think that is the issue here. The issue is being an annoyance to others. If your phone rings or you talk on the phone, you are being a nuisance. If your phone vibrates and you leave the cinema to take the call, then you are being respectful. If you for some reason can't take a call because cell phones are blocked, then you would know this beforehand and would avoid the theatre if you were expecting an important call.

      I can deal with people forgetting to turn their phones off in a movie (though I myself have the courtesy to turn mine off), as long as they don't yack on them in the theater.

      All recent movies I've been to actually tell the audience to turn off their phones and pagers. "Forgetting" is unexcusable. More like "ignoring" the request.

    43. Re:I'm really busy by toastednut · · Score: 1

      i agree, elegant, but how does an usher find you in a cinema?

    44. Re:I'm really busy by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a funny story from the first gulf war...

      Canadian officers wee attending a fancy dinner party at a ritzy hotel in Qatar, as I remember. The Head Waiter receives a phone call from the American HQ, apparently looking for somebody name Scott Allard. He wanders from table to table looking for the mysterious Mr. Allard to no avail. Only later did the find out the message was not for Scott Allard, it was a SCUD ALERT and they were all supposed to be taking refuge underground. Fortunately for everybody at the hotel, the SCUDs landed elsewhere.

      --
      My rights don't need management.
    45. Re:I'm really busy by Kainaw · · Score: 1

      I'm a parent.

      I have heard "I'm a doctor", "I'm a judge", and "I'm a fireman" as excuses for blabbering on the phone in the middle of a movie, but never "I'm a parent." When I was kid, nobody had cell phones. I wonder how in the world my parents ever went to the movies without me - oh, wait, I remember. They left me with a responsible person and expected things to be OK when they returned.

      --
      The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
    46. Re:I'm really busy by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Suppose there were a medical emergency in the theater, a doctor attempted to come to the person's aid, and the ushers kicked the doctor out. You can bet there would be a court case, and the theater would lose badly.

      Well that's just a ridiculous example. It's like saying some paramedics are rushing in with a stretcher and the usher blocks them because of a cell phone on the paramedic's belt. I can't even fathom someone being so unbelievably retarded that if a doctor said "There's a medical emergency. I need to get into the theater." they would kick the doctor out simply due to them having a cell phone.

      On another note, perhaps blocking of cell phones is possible while still allowing emergency calls through. Wouldn't it be possible to have a mini cell receiving station installed in the theater and proxy all the calls through it? If someone dials 911 or any other known emergency numbers, the cell proxy server would let it through. Any other number and the user gets a recorded message asking them to visit the courtesy phone in the lobby.

      That kind of solution might be cost prohibitive now but, as with any technology, I'm sure the price would soon be affordable.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    47. Re:I'm really busy by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      What if a doctor were to go watch a movie and one of his patients started dying and he needed to be contacted?

      They get another doctor. What if the doctor is stuck in traffic and can't get where he needs to be? What if he gets hit by a bus crossing the street. What if the doctor suffers amnesia? What if? What if? What if?

      There are hundreds of senarios that are conceivable where the doctor on call would not be reachable or able to make it in time, and if that's the case what do you think the hospitals do? Sit around pissing their pants?

      If the doctor is really worried, he asks to speak to the manager before he goes in, gives the guy his phone and says if this rings, get me immediately because it's a medical emergency.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    48. Re:I'm really busy by Jahf · · Score: 1

      Having worked at a theater I can tell you of a super-secret other method ...

      If it is a life/death emergency that forces you to bug your doctor in the movie theater ... call the theater (more likely than not you are calling an answering service) and tell them it is a freakin life or death situation and what movie the doctor is in.

      Not kidding. It works. Does it annoy the patrons? Sure, but the -frequency- of annoyance is tiny. I think over 3 years I was on shift when a doctor got such a call thrice ... that would be something like 3 times out of 9,000 showings while I was on shift. Conversely out of maybe 50 theater movies since then (that was 1989, before cellphones were too prevalent) I have heard a cellphone go off at -least- 5 times.

      3:50 versus 3:9000 ... and I would be surprised if more than one or two of those were actually important calls.

      The doctor, if they are on call or have deathly ill patients, has the responsibility to notify their call service or office/hospital where they will be when not at home or at work. That same doctor can use one of the many payphones that are usually at a theater or use a cellphone before and after the show to check in. There is -no- reason why cellphones must be enabled in a theater or any other similar venue for public safety.

      If a Doctor feels it is not safe to be out of touch for an hour or two, then perhaps they shouldn't be doing whatever it is might take them out of range to begin with. What about camping, caving, diving, etc? Arrange for someone to cover if it is that important.

      I am not saying every theater should have such shielding, but no way should they be prevented from doing it if they see fit. The compromise might be to have a sign when entering the theater that explains the situation so that people who must be contactable can notify the theater management of their location. It -does- work.

      --
      It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
    49. Re:I'm really busy by CKW · · Score: 1

      Ummm, if you've just had a "severe accident" in the middle of a dark theatre with 300 people around you, I think it's acceptable to stand up and scream "help help I need some help!!!".

      Seriously, if you're calling 911 on your cell phone in the middle of a dark theatre, what do you expect to happen 4 minutes latter when emergency services arrive?

    50. Re:I'm really busy by AndrewASmith · · Score: 1

      A responsible doctor would never go into a movie theatre if she were on call. If you're dying and your doctor is not available, the doctor who is on call will take your life as their responsibility. As for accidents and loved ones dying: You find out two hours later and regret for the rest of your life that you went and saw "The Day After Tomorrow". Have a bit more thought about the movies you go and see.

    51. Re:I'm really busy by AndrewASmith · · Score: 1

      I agree that if you're working you shouldn't be enjoying yourself in the cinema! Be responsible and decide what your priorities are.
      If you want to take the risk then at least respect others who have paid to see the movie and turn your phone off. I don't care if you get fired for it.

    52. Re:I'm really busy by isoprophlex · · Score: 1

      The Social Problem exists when people become to reliant on technologies like mobile phones. Most people didn't even own phones 10 years ago. Think about it, how did you go about your day to day life then. Everyone is saying this same thing inreply to all this. It's all very true. People if you are going to have a Mobile Phone, show some respect for your fellow movie patrons, or like another Slashdotter said... Stay Home and rent. It's all good.

    53. Re:I'm really busy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One time my wife woke up with a vivid dream that one of our kids were going to drown that next day. She told our kids to stick together, wear life jackets at their cousin's pool, and not be out without an adult. We had plans to go to a museum in another city, and the kids didn't want to not go to their cousin's pool.

      We told our sister about the dream, and left a number at the museum.

      Another sister showed up with her kids, one of which did drown that day under a hottub cover.

      We had just gotten to the museum, paid for our tickets and were heading down the stairs to the exhibit, when we were called over teh intercom.

      We hurried back to the phone, and my wife's voice was very stressful, and then she was told the news... It was all she could do to avoid screaming. And that was one lonely drive back for the next hour....

      But yeah, we'd leave the number of where we were going back then...

    54. Re:I'm really busy by g0at · · Score: 1

      I can deal with people forgetting to turn their phones off in a movie ... as long as they don't yack on them in the theater.

      I know what you mean! It's always a drag when people begin vomiting all over their phones during the movie.

      -b

    55. Re:I'm really busy by jc42 · · Score: 1

      is the doctor/ user of a medical monitor going to sue becuase their phone didn't work? If so then something is definitely wrong.

      True, but irrelevant to my point. If the phone "just didn't work" for no apparent reason, then nobody will be liable. But there is a long history of distinguishing this situation from one in which someone is responsible. If a huge rock falls from the sky and hits your house, it's an "act of God". But if a helicopter flies over your house carring a large chunk of concrete, they lose control of it and drop it on your house, then you can easily sue the operator for damages.

      Similarly, if you knowingly and intentionally block a cell-phone signal, then phone failures are no longer an "act of God", and there is someone who can be sued for consequences. The courts haven't much looked at this sort of case yet, mostly because such blocking hasn't been very easy. There's a good chance that courts will hear such cases soon. I wouldn't bet my money and freedom on the chance that they'd void all the legal precedents and decide that a person intentionally blocking such signals isn't responsible for the consequences. If you'd like to be the test case, go ahead. The rest of us will be interested in the outcome.

      Note that just putting up a sign rarely absolves you of responsibility. You can put up a "no ambulances allowed" sign at the entrance to your property. But there are very few places where such a sign would have any legal standing, and I wouldn't suggest that you try to enforce such a sign. If you block the path of an ambulance, it doesn't much matter to any court what you may believe; you will be held responsible for the consequences.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    56. Re:I'm really busy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'when the adhear ....'??? What language are you speaking? I honestly can't tell what English words you were trying to use here - 'they adhere' perhaps but that makes no sense in the context.

      Sad to see such an illiterate post get rated +5...

    57. Re:I'm really busy by aflat362 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and when the doctor was in the theater his patients died. Point is cell technology is relied on today and there are times when its critical. Blocking all cell reception for a simple convenience doesn't make sense for this reason.

      --

      Conserve Oil, Recycle, Boycott Walmart

    58. Re:I'm really busy by bigchris · · Score: 1

      Ha! I would *so* love for that story to be true...

    59. Re:I'm really busy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Please inform the fireman sitting in row 13 that there's a fire in the theatre that he must attend to."

  7. Why Not Just Encrypt? by afriguru · · Score: 5, Interesting
    UK defence contractor BAE Systems has developed a stealth wallpaper to beat electronic eavesdropping on company Wi-Fi and wired LANs.
    Instead of qoing through the hassle of covering a building with this wallpaper, why can't system admins just get into the habit of implementing encryption all the way (particularly for Wi-Fi networks?)
    1. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by Cska+Sofia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why take the risk of an outsider breaking your encryption if you can prevent their access to the signal in the first place?

    2. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by afriguru · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The attacker may well be inside the building; business offices are generally not run as military zones! And what about the windows of the building; will they be covered too? Breaking high encryption is probably not as easy as bribing a staff member to for access.

    3. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by Richard_L_James · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The answer to your question is right at the start of the text you quoted:

      UK **defence** contractor

      For some applications encryption isn't enough. Note also that WEP is a commercial encryption system this means it is NOT secure enough for very serious military applications which is where technologies like this play a role by preventing leakage or blocking interference.

    4. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Why not just encrypt?"

      Uh, when's the last time you had the electrons from your monitor's gun encrypted on the way to the screen? Right, never. That's what i thought...there are many, many forms of RF that can give away what it is that you are doing on a computer...encryption is only the beginning of the game.

    5. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by Mixel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because if you emit RF, you're giving your opponent another way to track your position. I'm not a military strategist, but advertising your position and time of presense (increased activity) sounds like a bad idea to me.

    6. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by Myolp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Instead of blocking signals to prevent eavesdropping, this could actually be used in rooms where you don't want a constant RF-signal passing through, like your childrens bedroom or something.

      The main reason I don't want WiFi in my home is the potential health-risk. If I could limit the RF-field to certain rooms, I just might consider it.

    7. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Y'know, there is something called copper wire, and it's quite usefull inside buildings, especially when you want things secure on at 'military' standards.

      I'd love to see this happening, all higher agencies go wireless, and wallpaper their windows, or drop (electronicly) dead the moment they declare war, thanks to this little feature.

      - wacco

    8. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by simonln · · Score: 1
      For some applications encryption isn't enough. Note also that WEP is a commercial encryption system this means it is NOT secure enough for very serious military applications which is where technologies like this play a role by preventing leakage or blocking interference.
      With all the known weaknesses of WEP I would say it's not secure enough for any serious use, that be military or commercial (and to some degree private).
    9. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by BlueWonder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When planning a security system (not restricted to computers, I'm talking about security in general), it's usually a good idea to take into account what an insider can do. Most often, what an insider can do is a strict superset of what an outsider can do, so if your system is secure against attacks from insiders, it's automatically also secure against attacks from outsiders.

      In the case at hand, it might be possible to use separate cryptograhic keys for separate groups of insiders, just like not every employee in a large company has a door key for every single door in the building. Restricting the signal by means of a wallpaper could be harder.

    10. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by hanssprudel · · Score: 1

      I see we have a new member of the "I can sprout bullshit and get +5 club."

      (a) If you are so worried about interception that you think cryptography is not enough (meaning you are worried about traffic analysis and alike) then you won't be using a wireless network anyways.

      (b) WEP is not secure enough for any application. When the grandparent said encrypt things, he didn't necessarily mean WEP: for example, run an encrypted VPM over the WIFI network. WEP may suck, but claiming that commercial encryption systems can't be used for military applications is dead wrong. Well implemented systems based on AES and RSA and even TLS are as secure as you can get today. The modern crypto algorithms are NOT crackable today - people who can't understand the difference between theory and practice deserve no place in security (or in the military).

    11. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by Grizzlysmit · · Score: 1
      UK defence contractor BAE Systems has developed a stealth wallpaper to beat electronic eavesdropping on company Wi-Fi and wired LANs.
      Instead of qoing through the hassle of covering a building with this wallpaper, why can't system admins just get into the habit of implementing encryption all the way (particularly for Wi-Fi networks?)
      Nah next thing you'll be expecting them to have brains.
      --
      in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that :-D
      Francis Smit
    12. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by Richard_L_James · · Score: 1
      (a) If you are so worried about interception ... then you won't be using a wireless network anyways.
      see my earlier post here. Government offices tend to now use fibre to the desk.

      (b) WEP is not secure enough for any application.
      I just used WEP an Wi-Fi example that people would easily relate to.

      claiming that commercial encryption systems can't be used for military applications
      I didn't say that! I said for very serious military applications, i.e. stealth.

      AES and RSA and even TLS are as secure as you can get today
      Exactly... as secure as you or I as the average person in the street can get their hands on which is a million miles away from government usage.

      The modern crypto algorithms are NOT crackable today
      Maybe not by joe public using standard computing hardware.... governments are several steps ahead!

    13. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by qtp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would be surprised if the military was not encrypting the traffic as well. Even if you do have the link encrypted, it is still better if "the enemy" does not know that a message was passed in the first place.

      --
      Read, L
    14. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by Myself · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have a feeling the field strength in your home from nearby TV and radio transmitters, not to mention hydrogen-alpha radiation from the universe at large, is much higher than a WLAN would be. Do you live in a shielded box?

    15. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      governments are several steps ahead!

      They'd like us to think that, but it's probably not true, in general.

      Based on what the public cryptology industry can see, it's likely that the NSA is well ahead of us in stream ciphers and key management, somewhat ahead of us in block ciphers and they probably learn from the public community with regard to public key crypto.

      This article contains a long thread examining some of the NSA's previous public successes and failures and inferring from them the state of their capability.

      As for the ways in which governments might utilize this RF-blocking wall paper, I'll tell you how they'd really use it: In installations where sensitive data is not handled. Organizations, like militaries, who really care about security tend to take precautions with non-sensitive data on the theory that an enemy who collects and correlates enough non-sensitive data can deduce something important. Because of this, they will just refuse to use wireless networks even for unclassified data, because they make collection of large volumes of unclassified data too easy.

      This RF-blocking wallpaper may be good enough that they decide they can use wireless for unclassified networks.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    16. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the windows, try reading the article. They can apply the RF-blocking surface to glass, and since its on the order of 50 microns thick, it probably won't affect transparency.

    17. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by Myolp · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Why try to protect yourself from anything potentially dangerous when you can't protect yourself against everything?

      I prefer less radiation. Especially when it comes to protecting children who are more sensitive than adults.

    18. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

      My office building has guard towers, barbed wire fence, a minefield surrounding it and several SAM batteries on the roof. The front door is barred with sandbags, so I always have to enter my office through the roof by throwing down a flashbang and then rappelling down from the ceiling fan with a machine gun. Last time someone snuck into the building, we didn't call the police, we called the commandos!

    19. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      Or bribing them for the cipher keys?

    20. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by Lehk228 · · Score: 0, Troll

      then stop using depricated DRT technology, LCD emits far less radiation and heat, as well as being easier on the eyes.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    21. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by CaptainFrito · · Score: 1
      Even undersea fiber optic cables can be eavesdropped. So can wired Ethernet (802.11 -- a.k.a. Wi-Fi -- is simply Wireless Ethernet).

      This wallpaper, for ordinary people, is profoundly useless, unless of course they are prepared to cover the windows and window- and dorr frames, floors and ceilings, and install air-tight air-lock chambers for every entryway. It sounds perfect for those glass-box rooms repleat with auto-frosting glass for embassy officials and international counterespionage groups.

      And for those simply looking to avoid the very minor amount of energy emitted by these radios, i suggest you get rid of your: cordless phones, cell phones, television sets -- and move to a place where there's no television, cable TV, FM radio, complete absence of ambient satellite signals, any sort of radiomagnetic emmisions from the entire universe, etc. You do more damage to yourself looking into the microwave oven to see how well along your popcorn is than you would jamming a transmitting Wi-Fi radio up your...oh never mind, you get the picture.

      Then again, I suppose this is a good idea if your trying to have your house invisible to radar tracking systems too.

      I wonder how long it will be before this stuff will be available as invisible bra material for my car...now there's an invention I could use.

    22. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 1

      "then stop using depricated DRT technology.."

      Sure, right after you stop using words that you cannot spell correctly in your pseudo-elitist comments. Moving on.

      There are more than just a few places to pick up signals from a computer. LCD is not going to save your ass. Eyes perhaps, ass no. Besides, i'm typing this answer to your moronic comment on a laptop that has, you got it, LCD (imagine that). See you around.

    23. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by Anonymous+Cowtard · · Score: 1

      And which is cheaper? Putting up wallpaper or replacing every monitor in the building?

    24. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by mobets · · Score: 1

      Wep does a pretty good job at being an anoyance. I figure with as little WiFi traffic as I have on my network, it would take most of a day to get enough info to crack my random key (www.random.org). I seriously doubt any one is going to devote that much time to me. And if they do, I probobly have worse problems.

      --

      It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
    25. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      when's the last time you had the electrons from your monitor's gun encrypted on the way to the screen?

      Don't worry, Palladium will encrypt that too.
      (Unfortuantely I'm only half-joking.)

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    26. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by Eol1 · · Score: 1

      Just a quick comment here. The military does do wireless classified (Type 1, up to US SECRET) LAN's. NSA approved the gear a little while back. See http://www.govcomm.harris.com/secure-comm/ for more info. Along these same lines, they also make Type 1 secure GSM phones, http://www.gdds.com/sectera/gsm/index.html.

      The wallpaper technology is mostly to prevent folk with personal cellphones from using them in secure area's (SCIF's for exapmle). Military isn't worried about military grade communications getting cracked. They ARE worried about all those unsecure personally owned wireless devices (PDA's, phones, laptops, toasters) that folk bring into their SCIF's.

      --
      De Oppresso Liber
    27. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by tcgroat · · Score: 1

      If the building is properly shielded, then an insider cannot bypass the security by attaching an unencrypted WiFi device. The other important aspect is performance, not security. With a private airspace in a shielded facility, you don't lose bandwidth to traffic on the network next door (nor will they have to wait on your network traffic). You can even establish separate "subnet" airspaces in your building, to keep all the wireless traffic moving when you have a large number of users. All the WiFi hot-spots tie to a router, which direct traffic only to the recipient's zone. There's no need to have every data packet sent to every cubicle in the building.

    28. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by Phrack · · Score: 1

      Just because no one knows the combination to the safe doesn't mean you should leave the door unlocked.

      --
      Dump the IRS - http://www.fairtax.org
    29. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      The article says that this treatment can be effectively applied to windows as well.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    30. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was a fucking joke you dumbshit.

    31. Re:Why Not Just Encrypt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Encryption only solves the problem of protecting the data you're actively transmitting. The problem is the stuff you didn't plan to transmit.

      I currently work for a military firm and we're not allowed mobile phones switched on near equipment processing classified information, including PCs on our isolated network. Why? I'm not going to talk about it on the phone, am I?

      No, I'm not. But, this kit processing classified information always has a risk that it will create noise. This noise may be from unencrypted data. It may be from the core, unencrypted information that is actually being processed inside some box, prior to encryption. OK, that noise is low power and so won't get very far. Therefore it is not an issue itself. However, it may well have enough power to reach the mobile phone in my pocket as stand nearby hitting [^h] maintaining the equipment :o)

      Things like mobile phones are, funnily enough, rather good at tramsitting & receiving. I think we'd all get pretty annoyed if they weren't. The phone is capable of picking up the noise from this secret kit and this noise ends up cross modulated onto the mobile phone signal, which now acts as a carrier. The mobile is capable of transmitting well beyond the immediate area and therefore can transmit secret information outisde the site and (worst case scenario) into the aerial of the snooping kit sitting in the van outside. Hey presto, you've just released classified information to the press/the competition/the enemy.

      Compare TEMPEST, where the radiated noise generated by a display screen can be received and the image rebuilt. Same meat, different gravy.

  8. This is not a replacement for tinfoil hats by bersl2 · · Score: 1

    You still need a good Faraday cage to block everything.

    1. Re:This is not a replacement for tinfoil hats by K8Fan · · Score: 1
      You still need a good Faraday cage to block everything.

      Electronic music pioneer Wendy Carlos (formerly Walter) enclosed her Greenwich Village studio in a Faraday cage. In an article in Keyboard magazine, she described the dramatically lower noise level of all her analog equipment, including her custom built mixing board.

      I'm suprised more audiophiles aren't building Faraday cages for their analog electronics, or at least making sure they have a decent grounding system. Enclosing the turntable and pre-amp in a Faraday cage and using a balanced AC system should yeild dramatic reductions in low-level noise. Far more than any amount of tweeky cables.

      --
      "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
  9. I always preferred the cone of silence.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..looked far cooler!

  10. Interior decorating? by MachDelta · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dude! Couple this with some lead-painted shingles, and a couple of those dentists X-ray aprons for curtains, and my house will finally be impenetrable to their prying eyes (and ears).

    At last! A sanctuary!

    1. Re:Interior decorating? by WWWWolf · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but When Their Invasion Comes, they'll probably look at the radar and meters and stuff and think "that shielded house must be part of their intelligence network or something" and unceremoniously bomb the place.

      Thus, the real trick is to protect yourself without giving away the fact that you are protected, because those who try to avoid something, and are loud about it, eventually attract the attention of those they're trying to avoid. It's kind of like saying "This thing cannot be hacked" and next thing you know, you're 0wn3d.

    2. Re:Interior decorating? by Servo · · Score: 1

      Thats what they want you to think. You are not safe!

      --
      A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
    3. Re:Interior decorating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With one exception your wife who is secretly working for them :) Wife... oh I forgot this is slashdot... never mind!

  11. Why not just use a fine metal mesh... by mOoZik · · Score: 1

    ...to block RF? I'm sure you can select what frequencies by the size of the mesh. Though not as cool as wallpaper, that's for sure.

  12. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl by rich_r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds good if you're doing a makeover of, say, a secure military area.
    Obviously you can still pipe stuff through wires. (you know, those plastic/rubber coated strings of metal? remember them?)

  13. Is it just me or ... by orin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you were concerned enough about Wi-Fi security to buy this stuff, wouldn't you consider Wi-Fi enough of a security problem to ban it from your network environment? And what if this stuff doesn't come in the right color? Also - does anyone use IPSec on Wi-Fi networks? (given that WEP can be cracked with a large enough data capture)

    1. Re:Is it just me or ... by RollingThunder · · Score: 1

      You may want the flexibility of wireless, without the security risk. No harm in trying to find a way to have your cake and eat it too. ;)

    2. Re:Is it just me or ... by Homology · · Score: 4, Informative
      Also - does anyone use IPSec on Wi-Fi networks? (given that WEP can be cracked with a large enough data capture)

      OpenBSD has built-in support for IPSec, so it was quite easy to setup for WiFi. The OpenBSD firewall at home is functioning as an access point, and only IPSec related/authenticated traffic is allowed. So when I boot up the older laptop - that is also running OpenBSD - I'm up and running securely. And fast, since no encryption is done on the WiFi chipset, and thus freeing the chipset for handling packets only.

      OpenBSD really makes it straightforward to setup a secure, functional and stable home gateway.

    3. Re:Is it just me or ... by inertialmatrix · · Score: 0

      "Concerned enough about Wi-Fi security... given that WEP can be cracked with a large enough data capture"

      It's called WPA, and it can be much more secure than WEP.

      Just remember to be smart and NOT use a word that can be found in a dictionary for your passkey if you are not using an authentication server.. Random numbers help - doh.

  14. It'll never take off. by dj245 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Have you any idea how much harder it is to make hats out of wallpaper than it is out of tinfoil?

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    1. Re:It'll never take off. by kfg · · Score: 1

      Have you any idea how much harder it is to make hats out of wallpaper than it is out of tinfoil?

      Yeah, 'cause like with wallpaper you have to actually make it vaguely hat shaped, and thus run the risk of ending up vaguely fashionable.

      a Non La is fairly easy to make out of wallpaper though. Just draw a big circle, cut a wedge out of it, and then glue the edges together.

      The Non La is an emminently functional hat too and spreads a good "tin foil umbrella". Much better than those skull cap thingies the average paranoid wears.

      A side effect advantage is that if you're wearing one while walking down Main Street, and a car backfires, and you hit the ground, roll under a parked pickup while yelling "Incoming!" people don't get weirded out all that much, they just mutter, "Aw Jeez, another one" and simply go about their business.

      KFG

    2. Re:It'll never take off. by sharkey · · Score: 1

      That may be, but if you wet the inside prior to wearing it, the hat will stay put much better than the tinfoil variety, at least with the pre-glued wallpaper.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  15. Nice and all, but who's going to use it? by lokedhs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I mean, if you have such sensitive data that you need to install this, why not simply use copper cables, and spare yourself the hassle (and sleepless nights in case the cat tears the wallpaper).

    1. Re:Nice and all, but who's going to use it? by CdBee · · Score: 1

      Being metallic, you could deter the cat by running a high frequency AC current through the wallpaper.

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    2. Re:Nice and all, but who's going to use it? by Arcanix · · Score: 1

      Come on now don't you know that convenience for the end user is always more important than security? Why else would Windows run on 90% of computers...

    3. Re:Nice and all, but who's going to use it? by Richard_L_James · · Score: 4, Informative
      I mean, if you have such sensitive data that you need to install this, why not simply use copper cables

      Copper cables are far too easy to detect and physically tap. For really sensitive applications fibre-optic cables are used. A classic text book example being the use of fibre optics to link up scud missiles launchers in Iraq.

    4. Re:Nice and all, but who's going to use it? by Myself · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you, but it's trivial to tap fiber. There are handheld meters that gently curve a fiber, and use the light leaking out of the curve to detect which direction the light is going. (helpful to sort out the TX from the RX fiber in a crowded panel)

      Feed that leakage into an EDFA and you might have enough signal to recover the data. If not, a tiny nick in the edge of the fiber and a drop of index-matching fluid are all it takes to get more light from the fiber. Most receivers are pretty flexible and most networks have plenty of headroom, so siphoning off a few dB of light won't even interrupt the circuit being tapped. This style of tap is more likely to be noticed because it causes a sudden quantifiable drop in signal strength.

      The intruder is helped, however, by the fact that the signal levels in fiber optic systems vary continuously. Something as simple as the aerial cable swinging in the breeze can cause fluctuations, so a tap performed during stormy weather is more likely to go unnoticed.

      You're right however that copper cables are easier to detect, like with a metal detector. Since fiber isn't inductive, it can go unnoticed if buried well. (Of course, as any backhoe driver can tell you, this makes it easier to claim ignorance after slicing through a major fiber route.)

    5. Re:Nice and all, but who's going to use it? by Richard_L_James · · Score: 1
      As your informed posting points out it is indeed possible to tap fibre. My post was simply pointing out the fact that government/military establishments have now all switched over to using fibre for ultra secure requirements in preference to copper which is easier to tap than fibre.

      You may or may not be aware that technology exists which allows the light paths in a fibre to be continuously altered in much the same way that band switching (rapidly switching transmissions across multiple frequencies) is already used by the military to evade listening. A military installation is not only likely to make use of this technology but would implement it across multiple fibres. Yes, band switching technology exists on copper networks (e.g. fast etherchannel) however throw in the complexities of dust free fusion splicing (in a battlefield environment...!), the time required to implement a fibre tap clearly highlight the obvious fact that fibre more suited for secure networks than copper.

    6. Re:Nice and all, but who's going to use it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      governments are several steps ahead!
      They'd like us to think that, but it's probably not true, in general.

      Really? In relation to decryption by the UK/US that is certainly NOT the case as they will have:

    7. Re:Nice and all, but who's going to use it? by swillden · · Score: 1

      I was talking about cryptologic capabilities. You're talking about social power and influence. Different things.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:Nice and all, but who's going to use it? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Possible, aye, but harder to do, and easier to detect, than just tapping an ethernet cable.

      Of course, if it matters that much to you, your cable should be run in a sealed conduit filled with pressurized gas.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  16. business owners are real people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    business owners are real people

  17. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl by orthogonal · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ok, its nice. This wallpaper blocks a lot of RF radation (sic). This means that you can not use WLAN, cellphones and terrestrial TV/Radio. Is this really what you want?

    It's what defense contractors, the government, and businesses worried about industrial espionage by employees, want.

    And given that Witchfinder General Ashcroft and Big Blunkett are in power, I'm sure it will not only sell well, but be heavily subsidized by government, and probably required on certain government contractors.

  18. Ok, it stops it going through the walls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    But what if someone opens a window?

    1. Re:Ok, it stops it going through the walls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on who would allow (w|W)indows in a security-aware place?

    2. Re:Ok, it stops it going through the walls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are a defence contractor. If someone opens the window, they get shot.

    3. Re:Ok, it stops it going through the walls by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      If they didn't put wallpaper over the windows, what does it matter if they're open or closed? (Assuming no special glass/mesh.)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:Ok, it stops it going through the walls by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      Modern office buildings generally don't have windows that can be opened.

      To steal an idea from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I imagine most office buildings, which act basically as giant greenhouses, would get very unpleasantly hot if the air conditioning failed.

      I'll bet this also aggravates adult allergies, as people are placed in a pollen-free environment for eight hours a day.

    5. Re:Ok, it stops it going through the walls by kryptKnight · · Score: 1

      "The panels are 50 to100 microns thick and can be applied to most surfaces including glass"

      There's still the problem of someone opening a door, I supose you could apply some to a set of doors in a row where only one could be opened at a time to create a system similar to an airlock.

      --
      Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -Aldous Huxley
    6. Re:Ok, it stops it going through the walls by Ira+Sponsible · · Score: 2, Funny

      I know this is slashdot, but this article has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Windows. Can we please have a thread once in a while that doesn't bash Windows?

      --
      1.Netcraft confirms:In Soviet Russia all your base welcomes a beowolf cluster of CowboyNeal overlords. 2.? 3.Profit!!1!
    7. Re:Ok, it stops it going through the walls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what if someone opens a window?

      Well, like a fart in the wind your precious RF will be gone for all the world to see.

      Right after that *they* will arrive and you'll hear "suck it down, monkey boy!"....

  19. That's probably what this is by autopr0n · · Score: 3, Informative

    A conductive mesh layer in some wall paper.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  20. We do not like the term paranoid nuts by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Funny

    we prefer the term reality-challenged.

    Hey, I had to make a joke about something. 3 other people took my tin-foil hat joke :(

    1. Re:We do not like the term paranoid nuts by Alien+Being · · Score: 2, Funny

      "3 other people took my tin-foil hat joke :("

      Do you think they were working together?

    2. Re:We do not like the term paranoid nuts by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Hey, I had to make a joke about something. 3 other people took my tin-foil hat joke :(

      Thought-stealing rays are what you get for not wearing your tin-foil hat.

    3. Re:We do not like the term paranoid nuts by MntlChaos · · Score: 1
      Hey, I had to make a joke about something. 3 other people took my tin-foil hat joke :(

      Thought-stealing rays are what you get for not wearing your tin-foil hat.

      Nah. he was wearing hit tin-foil hat, but it was inside-out!
    4. Re:We do not like the term paranoid nuts by photon317 · · Score: 1


      They were working together, but they weren't conscious of it. My buddy and I working the late shift at the NSA mind-control console decided to flip the switch on three braindead slashdotters and use them to steal and post this guy's tinfoil hat joke. We'll log the activity as "systems function check" or something, not like anyone reads the logs anyways.

      --
      11*43+456^2
  21. RTFA by cperciva · · Score: 5, Informative

    This means that you can not use WLAN, cellphones and terrestrial TV/Radio. Is this really what you want?

    Quoth the article:
    The company has produced panels using the technology to produce a screen that will prevent outsiders from listening in on companies' Wi-Fi traffic but let other radio and mobile phone traffic get through.

    1. Re:RTFA by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      so it will block only 2.4ghz? or 5 as well? or nothing at all? it has the makings of a snakeoil in it(besides.. really, should you be using wifi if you don't wany anyone outside the room to detect it? if you absolutely must have wireless wouldn't some low power bluetooth be better?).

      802.11b and 802.11g standards transmit at 2.4 GHz,
      802.11a standard transmits at 5 GHz.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:RTFA by kfg · · Score: 1

      Roses are red
      Violets are blue
      There's no reason they can't make RF wallpaper in different "colors" too

      KFG

    3. Re:RTFA by LinuxInDallas · · Score: 1

      This isn't about "outside the room." It's about outside your building. Also, like the article says, if you are in an office building with different companies on different floors then you can keep as many prying as out as possible.

    4. Re:RTFA by Build6 · · Score: 1

      Actually, this reminds me of something - in the early days, before 802.11b was everywhere and 802.11g showed up, the proponents of 802.11a were actually saying that one of the advantages of 802.11a was that at 5GHz the waves were *less* able to propagate beyond the walls of the building (and therefore was better, security-wise). I didn't know whether to think that they had a point, or that they were getting desperate (g was on the horizon and i think everybody could see that with backwards compatibility to b, they had a major advantage). Another nail in the coffin for 802.11a then?

  22. 10 years from now todays encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    10 years from now todays encryption will be easily breakable but many secrets still relevant/important
    (no access, no loss, no liability...)

  23. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl by neglige · · Score: 1

    I guess you can use WLAN inside your apartment, as long as you use this kind of wallpaper on your outside walls only. Then the radio waves can pass through the inner walls, though not outside (your garden, e.g.).

    Cellphones won't work, but TV and radio could, if the antenna is outside (on the roof) and the signals are distributed via cable. And cable TV/radio works too, of course.

    I'm not sure how big the market really is. A few people are concerned with the increasing amount of radiation (TV, GSM, UMTS, WLAN, DECT...). Regarding health issues, there is no definitve answer. So if the price of the wallpaper is not too high, I'd guess that some people are better safe than sorry, especially if they have small children.

    --
    My cats ate my karma. They also wrote this comment.
  24. Hospitals too? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

    Seriously. The parent sounds like a valid application of this technology.

  25. cost, clutter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    copper is more expensive than wallpaper
    copper is clutter

  26. alarm goes off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    alarm goes off

  27. Interesting by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For sometime i've wanted to have my main workstation off the network, grid and inside a faraday cage. But think about how ridiculous that would be/look? The other machines in the house would be okay to leave alone, but i'd want at least one that i knew was safe (data transfers would be on extreme need only, i.e. data sets into and encrypted messeges written inside).

    But i'm getting away from my original point: this is sweetness. No, it's not exactly what i'm looking for, but it's a stop in the correct direction. Think you've never had a neighbor whom owns a 900MHz scanner? Anyway, i think this is great. You and i both know that information, its protection, secure dissemenation, and reliability of said information are the weapons of the upcoming century. You need to have your data safe whether you think so or not, so the more things like this the better.

    1. Re:Interesting by spacehymns · · Score: 1
      ...information, its protection, secure dissemenation, and reliability of said information are the weapons of the upcoming century. You need to have your data safe whether you think so or not, so the more things like this the better.
      This kind of thinking only perpetuates distrust and animosity between users of technology. While it's tempting to take up arms in this 'war', unnecessary aggression makes the world a harsher place. Look at Bush!
    2. Re:Interesting by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 1

      wrong answer. Go ahead and make me a list of universally trustworthy entities. By that i mean, REGARDLESS of your race, nationality, creed, religion, past, political alliance, dogma, etc...and still remains trustworthy.

      You've forgotten, not everyone on this earth likes you and you will not always be on the most powerful side, nor the "right side" as that seems to follow the power.

    3. Re:Interesting by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      I can't make you a list of universally trustworthy entities using that criteria checklist you suggest, but then, I can't make you a list of funny commedians, good authors, or healthy breakfasts using those same limits either. In fact, I can only think of one list that can fit your criteria and still have more than zero entries: Safe answers to "Do these jeans make me look fat?"

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  28. *puts on hat* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The Government put in a backdoor! I know it!

  29. now they just need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Wi-Fi blocking paint.

    I'm having a 70s flashback right now of all the awful wallpaper...

  30. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously you need to read the article .*roll*
    "Will prevent outsiders from listening in on companies' Wi-Fi traffic BUT let other radio and mobile phone traffic get through."

  31. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl by arivanov · · Score: 5, Informative

    Quite usefull for setting test environments as well. In fact, extremely useful if you are working on cellular infrastructure or any other radio equipment that operates in a licensed band.

    --
    Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
    http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  32. Okay, nice idea but... by KitFox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What about the windows and doors? RF goes through them too. I could just see somebody wallpapering their ceiling also. (It's such a lovely print though!)

    It really strikes me as a product for the "Security-Concerned-But-Uninformed", because I really wonder how many companies that want to use this will block other means of RF egress. And those that don't will simply have a false sense of security and a big hole in their "defenses".

    Believe me, I'm literally right across the hall from a "RF-Secure" room at times, and that has EVERYTHING covered in every direction, windows, doors, floor and ceiling.

    --

    @Whee

    1. Re:Okay, nice idea but... by Hungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Glass can be coated with a "transparent" (ok not really transparent but it looks like window tinting) conductive material that will block various ranges of em radiation. We have used it in the past with gauss cages to build em isolation rooms for conferences

      --
      Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
    2. Re:Okay, nice idea but... by Richard_L_James · · Score: 1
      What about the windows and doors?

      I suspect that many of the rooms this has been designed for are unlikely to even have Windows. However quoting the article: The panels are 50 to100 microns thick and can be applied to most surfaces including glass.

      Believe me, I'm literally right across the hall from a "RF-Secure" room at times, and that has EVERYTHING covered in every direction, windows, doors, floor and ceiling.

      Oh I believe you!! The military have been known to paint entire rooms 100% black (including light bulbs, meters, control panels!) when establishments have been left dormant for long periods but there is still a slim chance that they may require quickly bringing back on-line at a later stage. So the idea of someone using this to wallpaper everything in a room (e.g cabinets, desks) isn't as far fetched as some people may think!

    3. Re:Okay, nice idea but... by KitFox · · Score: 1

      Glass can be coated with a "transparent" (ok not really transparent but it looks like window tinting) conductive material that will block various ranges of em radiation.

      Okay, I do agree with you there, as my wife just pointed out an excellent example:
      She was working to set up direct microwave communications between two buildings across the Los Angeles bay, and discovered the hard way that the windows on the buildings had "tint" on them that quite effectively blocked microwave completely.

      But you take situations like yourself: setting up a gauss cage; or the room across the hall, which has the same thing effectively, and you are looking at "Professionally secured environments". And the cost of setting up things like that can be quite high.

      But in this case, what happens if the product becomes inexpensive, and somebody can go in and say, "Put this on your walls and it blocks Wi-Fi! Instant security from evesdropping!". How many smaller companies who don't want the expense of hiring a security specialist will end up buying into a false sense of security from having (just) their walls absorbing the signal?

      As long as it takes some brains and forthought to secure something, and people KNOW this, then things will be more secure, because they know they do not have the necessary knowledge to do it themselves, and hire somebody who does. When it gets to the point where any security system is "Easy to install yourself! Just add wallpaper!", and cheap enough for anybody to do, then you suddenly have potential for unrecognized holes in the system, and thus no real security.

      --

      @Whee

    4. Re:Okay, nice idea but... by incog8723 · · Score: 1

      What about the windows and doors? RF goes through them too. I could just see somebody wallpapering their ceiling also. (It's such a lovely print though!)

      I really think this is intended for installations such as NSA which have no windows, and are located in the depths of hell.

    5. Re:Okay, nice idea but... by Hungus · · Score: 1

      So long as they are not my clients, I would prefer people leave large gaping holes in thier security. Of course when they don't, I get paid more, but it is a balance of things.

      Some times you feel like cracking a nut, some times you don't (to paraphrase the confectionary slogan from times since past)

      --
      Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
    6. Re:Okay, nice idea but... by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 1

      So when did the NSA move to Redmond, WA?

      --
      "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
    7. Re:Okay, nice idea but... by Myself · · Score: 1

      Ahh, did you read the article? Copper sheets are old tech, and that's what you'd want to make an RF shielded room. The product being developed is essentially a band-cut filter, it blocks a specific range of wavelengths while letting others through. The idea being that you can still listen to the radio while foiling wardrivers.

      Which means of course that to compromise the 'secure' environment, you need only drop a device inside that communicates with the outside over unblocked frequencies.

    8. Re:Okay, nice idea but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This article is just mentioning the wallpaper as an easy-to-apply way of building the RF-secure walls. It states that the same company makes RF-secure glass.

    9. Re:Okay, nice idea but... by BigFire · · Score: 1

      Or you can construct a secure room with acoustic padding, re-enforced with Faraday Cage mesh on all 6 sides. NSA & CIA both has these kind of room for sensative meetings.

  33. forget walls. by ross.w · · Score: 5, Funny

    I want to put this stuff on my car.

    No more radar speed traps!

    --
    If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    1. Re:forget walls. by Rob+Carr · · Score: 1
      I want to put this stuff on my car. No more radar speed traps!

      You'd have to design the paint for the frequency range used in radar guns - and then it would be totally useless against laser timing or places where they use the stripes on the road.

      If you're going to wallpaper your car, be sure to use a good epoxy.

      --
      This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
  34. Yes, but... by NarrMaster · · Score: 1, Funny

    It is your house. No matter how secure it is, they still know where you live!

    --
    That's right. All your base.
  35. The (v. short) article - before it gets nuked by aitsu · · Score: 2, Informative
    Stealth wallpaper could keep LANs secure

    June 18 2004, by Ron Coates

    UK defence contractor BAE Systems has developed a stealth wallpaper to beat electronic eavesdropping on company Wi-Fi and wired LANs. The company has produced panels using the technology to produce a screen that will prevent outsiders from listening in on companies' Wi-Fi traffic but let other radio and mobile phone traffic get through.

    The FSS (Frequency Selective Surface) panels are made in the same way as printed circuit boards - layers of copper on Kapton polymer - and used on stealth bombers and fighter jets. They come in two varieties: passive, which is effectively permanent, and active, where various areas can be switched on and off to enlarge or limit the area of the network.

    The panels are 50 to100 microns thick and can be applied to most surfaces including glass. A company spokesman claimed that they also helped reduce "noise" in buildings where a number of companies operate their own separate LANs.

    BAE Systems developed the new material with 145,000 of funding from the Radiocommunications Agency, which is now part of Ofcom. BAE says the material is cheap and it will be developing it commercially through BAE's corporate venture subsidiary.

    There is no timescale for its commercial availability.

  36. Wow, they use Aluminum foil in stealth bombers! by TheLoneCabbage · · Score: 1

    Good greif.

    It's high tech, it can block wifi! So can standing in front of the antena.

    Find a tastefull way to tape aluminum foil to all your walls, without looking like a kook, and I guess you can make a million.

  37. Is this a kind of copper wire net/mesh? by NoSuchGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

    that's the same as a Faraday cage. No signal in means no signal out!

    Does that mean I can't patent my own copper wire net?

    Can you patent the laws of physics?

    If yes, I patent the gravity and demand fees for using my patent....

    --
    Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
    1. Re:Is this a kind of copper wire net/mesh? by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      You can patent novel inventive industrial applications of the laws of physics. However, even the USPTO doesn't let you patent the laws of physics yet. (Pure maths appears to be patentable though - consider RSA).

  38. a much better use... by rapiddescent · · Score: 2, Funny

    would be to cover my car with this material to prevent getting snapped by one of the 20,000 GATSO speed cameras in the UK... rd

  39. Alright...! by igrp · · Score: 4, Funny
    BAE, the British defense contractor, has announced that the same material used to foil radar by stealth bombers can be used to selectively block certain frequencies and prevent wireless networking signals from entering or exiting a building.
    So... what they're saying is that all I need now is a whole bunch of their wallpaper and a cessna and I could have my very own stealth plane?

    Cool... Be the first kid on your block to own your own flower wall paper stealth plane.

  40. Shielding is Hard by Detritus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Assuming that you cover the walls with this stuff, you still have to worry about the floor, ceiling, windows, doors, ventilation ducts, plumbing and electrical wiring, plus any holes or gaps in the shielding. Then there is telephone, LAN and video wiring to worry about.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    1. Re:Shielding is Hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your average EMI testing lab already have linings that absorb EMI as well as messive EMI filters on all the power lines going into the room. While this is to prevent EMI entering the chamber that affects your FCC part15 test.

      And only an idiot would route video & LAN into that room. It is meant to be a secured room at all times.
      ie. no data, cell phones, recording devices should be taken into or out of the room.

  41. Radar detection by hashwolf · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...the British defense contractor, has announced that the same material used to foil radar by stealth bombers can be used to selectively block certain frequencies and prevent wireless networking signals from entering or exiting a building.

    In a related article:
    Wallpaper coated cessna evades radar detection.

    --
    - "They misunderestimated me."
  42. Perfect for theaters and airplanes by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stuff like this will restore the peace and quiet to theaters and restaurants. And the passive nature of the material means it should not run afoul of U.S. FCC regs on "interference" (I don't know about other countries' rules).

    Assuming the material is actually absorptive (not reflective) at cell-phone frequencies, it would also reduce the passage of cellphone signals into and out of airplanes and reduce any chance of passenger's cell phone transmissions from interfering with the airplane's electronics or the ground-based cells they are flying over.

    Finally, they could use the stuff to help separate WiFi networks in office and apartment buildings. A layer of the stuff under the carpet or in the ceiling would keep wifi signals confined to a single tenant's floor or section of the building so that different tenant's wireless nets don't collide.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Perfect for theaters and airplanes by gl4ss · · Score: 0, Redundant

      if the people don't care about others movie experience enough to turn the mobile off when they clearly should, what makes you think they'll act properly when you try to force them? imagine running around the theatre and yelling "CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW??". It's a people problem, not a tehcnological one(is speeding or drunk driving a technological problem? no, it's a problem of people acting like assholes).

      anyways if you had read the article you'd notice that this material can be used to block ONLY wifi frequencies(I'm assuming 2.4ghz), whilst letting other rf pass(including mobile phone frequencies).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Perfect for theaters and airplanes by G4from128k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if the people don't care about others movie experience enough to turn the mobile off when they clearly should, what makes you think they'll act properly when you try to force them?

      No "force" is involved. Their cell phones would simply get no signal which means no inbound calls, no outbound calls, and no shouting. I'd say that cellphones in theaters is both a people and technological problem because the technology lets people use noisy telecom devices where they shouldn't and lets people think they must be in constant contact. If technology can passively block cellphone signals, then that's a nice solution to a problem created by technology in the first place. With the controllable version that's mentioned in the article, theaters could even let cellphones work before the movie starts and then warn the audience that they will be disabling cellphone signals when the lights go down.

      anyways if you had read the article you'd notice that this material can be used to block ONLY wifi frequencies(I'm assuming 2.4ghz), whilst letting other rf pass(including mobile phone frequencies).

      Yes, and if you read between the lines of the article, you'd notice that the technology is extremely adaptible. The size and shape of the pattern controls the frequency characteristics. It would be just as easy (and inexpensive) to make a sheet that blocks cellphones and lets wifi signals pass.

      --
      Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  43. lead walls? by ylikone · · Score: 4, Funny

    After all the effort everyone has gone through to get rid of lead-based paint on the walls?

    --
    Meh.
  44. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl by kfg · · Score: 2, Funny

    Obviously you can still pipe stuff through wires.

    Which, for home applications, may very well lead to that "TV antenna" thingy that's strapped to your chimney.

    KFG

  45. And I wonder... by SharpFang · · Score: 2, Funny

    who first starts selling paper hats made of that wallpaper.
    Definitely better than tinfoil.
    I guess ThinkGeek would find many customers on slashdot...

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  46. Use it where you develop your encryption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think maybe the bad guys would want to eavesdrop on that?

  47. Yes, hospitals too. by teidou · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most people don't understand why hospitals would use this: every hospital I have worked in would be interested.

    Cell phones, even by being on can affect drug infusion pumps: it is not good to have the infusion rate spontaneously jump from 1 mL/min to 100mL/min. What's worse is that some people don't know the difference between "standby" and "off" - they think just not using it will turn off the transceiver. (Yeah, yeah, Snopes says it's not a big problem. They're FOS on this one: it really does happen).

    Some visitors argue it is a problem with the medical equipment and they should get to keep their phone on: 1) possibly a valid point, but the fact is that patient health is threatened by the phone, and 2) the historic FCC position is that RF shall not interfere with other equipment. (Incidenally, new medical equipment is better shielded (hinted at on the FDA website).

    Finally, to the genius who wants to point out that many hospitals are using wireless for notebook computing and wireless monitoring: 1) those in use are on different frequencies than cell phones, and 2) they are very carefully tested before implementation, (Also, I'm not sure on this point, but I believe they are probably less powerful than cell phones; this is why repeaters are in every hallway rather than just one on the roof. If the wallpaper is just on the exterior of the building, I doubt it would not interfere with current use).

    Teidou

    1. Re:Yes, hospitals too. by Myself · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While you're right that it's the transmitter's responsibility not to cause interference, I still think it's dangerously irresponsible to keep old machines in service that've proven themselves unreliable in the face of common interference.

      You make an excellent point that the WLANs used in hospitals are very low power. Yes, they put APs every few yards down the hallways, so that the portable devices never have to step up their transmit power to reach one.

      The solution to the cell phone problem in hospitals is to put base station equipment IN the hospital and run Radiax down the hallways. Alternately, just put cell sites as close to the building as possible. When the phones can reach a tower easily, they'll limit their output power accordingly.

      This is also the counterintuitive solution to the weenies who protest when a cellphone company wants to put a tower near the high school. (This frequently happens when an athletic field is getting new lights.) Compare a cordless phone to a moonbounce transmission, which requires more power?

      The first mobile phones weren't cellular, there was a single base station in the center of town. The powers used were on the order of 50 watts, so it's a good thing the vehicle-mounted antenna was several feet from the handset. When cellular was developed, it meant you were always within a mile or two of a tower, so the power levels decreased drastically. Phones reduce their output power in response to requests from the tower, because it's easier for the tower to "hear" the faint phones if the near phones aren't screaming.

      Shielding the place into an RF hole is counterproductive. In the event that someone forgets to turn their phone off, it'll sit there chirping out its maximum transmit power every once in a while, searching for a tower it can't find. Worse yet, it'll maintain contact with a tower it can just barely hear, only if it really blasts out the RF. This helps nobody.

    2. Re:Yes, hospitals too. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      ome visitors argue it is a problem with the medical equipment and they should get to keep their phone on:

      Not relevant - if you want to visit the hospital, you must play by their rules. Naturally, there are limits to what they can ask, but this isn't even close.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    3. Re:Yes, hospitals too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont know how many people here have actually worked in a relitively modern hospital, but just about every one i know who has worked in one never turns of their *Digital* hanset.

      You see i was told by my supervisor to not even worry about turning off my phone, it seems that only the old high powered analogue devices were a big problem, and the rules just kinda stuck.

      In fact i got told some tales about nurses holding surgeons mobiles up to their ears while in surgery and the like.

      While I am sure that mobiles are not desired in hospitals, and their may be some older equipment that doesnt like them, mainly the rule is there so that every one can have some peace and quiet... rather than hear every second person natter on their phone every two minutes.

      Probably the best way to check this would be to see if the CEO turns of his phone on his way into the hospital... if he does then you should turn yours off too

      Just my two cents on the matter

    4. Re:Yes, hospitals too. by phpsocialclub · · Score: 1

      >In the event that someone forgets to turn their phone off, it'll sit there chirping out its maximum transmit power every once in a while, searching for a tower it can't find

      No wonder my phone runs down so fast when it has no signal, like when you are in a ski area, especially Snow Shoe Mountainin West Virginia, which is some sort of EMF free zone because of a radio telescope.

    5. Re:Yes, hospitals too. by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      >Also, I'm not sure on this point, but I believe they are probably less powerful than cell phones

      Correct. A cellphone can push as much as 3-5 watts out. Wifi is measured in milliwatts, about 200 or so for a decent AP, the cards are usually a little weaker.

    6. Re:Yes, hospitals too. by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Jezus H. Christ. If a cell phone can affect a drip pump, then you better have the bloody drip pump repaired. Secondly, blocking cell phones is a baaaaad idea - think liability when you can't call 911 during a fire, because the friggen building owner painted the place with absorbing paint.

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    7. Re:Yes, hospitals too. by heydonms · · Score: 1

      wouldnt the wall paper block signals from the other side of the wall (ie outside)? wouldnt that be the phone tower which is always pumping its signal in regardless of who's phone is turned on? and wouldnt a phone that cant find a tower be likely to send out some sort of probe to try and get a reply? As far as I can tell this wouldnt actually help. a better solution would be shielding the equipment, and the faraday cage has been around for a long time.

  48. This will thrill my boss. by rayd75 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    She constantly embarrasses me by explaining to visitors that our wireless network is secure because "we only use the lower power equipment that is hard to pick up outside the building". Never mind the DMZ, L2TP tunnel, MAC filtering, client firewalls, etc. Oh well, at least she is letting me keep the access points turned on more often these days.

  49. Sounds like.. by twoslice · · Score: 0

    A building called the Jar. Dean: What did you do? Brill: I blew up my house! Dean: Why did you do that??? Brill: Cause you made a phone call!!!

    --

    From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
  50. This scream "health issue" by shpoffo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does this sound to anyone else as causing similar problems as reported by a study from the UK (reported here on /.) about cel phone usage in trains raising the ambient radiation levels about those deemed safe by regulatory committees? When the waves are 'blocked' I get the sense that they're reflected back into the space. Probalby makes for a stronger signal, but you'll also get radiation build-up, and perhaps focusing effects - where you'll get small spaces where there will be a literal 'hot spot.' Everyone could go and set their food on the left corner of the third filing cabinet from the end of Dave's cubicle for a few minutes to heat it up before lunch......

    yuck

    .
    -shpoffo

    1. Re:This scream "health issue" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The phones can adjust their power levels to talk to their cell sites. It is more likely the phones "yell" louder when the signals cannot reach the sites due to attentuations.

    2. Re:This scream "health issue" by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      I think after a time out it will give up and then only send a signal every so-often, either that or it listens out for a tower before trying to contact it. Otherwise im never going on the tube in rush-hour again.. fuck that things in my pocket blasting out radiation at my family jewels!

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    3. Re:This scream "health issue" by man_ls · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My phone I have broadcasts at its maximum of 750mW for 30 seconds, after which it chirps 750mW for 1 sec every 30 trying to find a cell site.

      Verizon CDMA

      Not too worried.

    4. Re:This scream "health issue" by nick0909 · · Score: 1

      Especially since law enforcement, road crews, public works, etc. normally have 50w radios, and fire engines normally have 110w radios (for VHF anyway). Drive by one of these guys why they are talking and its going to be absorbed and heat your cells more than a cellphone will. No one worried about them, though, they are public safety!

    5. Re:This scream "health issue" by man_ls · · Score: 1

      VHF frequencies are in MHz; human flesh is mostly transparent to this frequency.

      Thus 110w @ 200 MHz (or something) is going to be absorbed little to not at all by a human.

      Good point you made, but there's a bit more to RF than just power output.

    6. Re:This scream "health issue" by nick0909 · · Score: 1

      The average human is about 6 feet, which is approximately one wavelength in the VHF public service and business pools (150MHz). Standing up, you are a nicly resonating grounding device for that energy in the air. I guess I was unclear, the cells heating up is the result of the absorption of the energy, the cells themselves are not resonate but the entire structure, be it a human or an antenna.

      The FCC has human exposure rules because this is a very real issue, and not just with GHz. KWNZ, located in Carson City, Nevada, was just fined $10,000 by the FCC for violating public exposure limits at their transmission site, and they are on 93.7MHz (almost 10 foot wavelength).

  51. What I'd Like... by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You know what I'd like. A clear, (well colorless as in it wouldn't make my walls look funky), coating I can paint on in my apartment to try and block out whoever the bastard w/ the 2ghz phone is. It farks up my wireless at least every other night.

    --
    I do security
  52. RF-Blocking Wallpaper by Alexis+de+Torquemada · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sounds good, where can I download it?

    1. Re:RF-Blocking Wallpaper by mingust · · Score: 1

      Not in the street outside my house anymore!

      --
      ~mingust
  53. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ashcroft is far too scary to tame him with a nickname from *Good Omens*. Would you call Hitler "Toothbrush Adolf?"

  54. My parents were doing this when I was a kid by macemoneta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My mom always loved the foil/felt (flock) wallpapers in our dining room, when I was growing up (about 40 years ago). The foil was always grounded, because it went under the (metal) outlet and switch covers, which in turn grounded to the (metal) box. I know the foil was conductive, because we once had a two-wire appliance short to it's metal case (before the days of 'double insulated' design), and I got a shock touching the wall and appliance.

    Maybe companies selling this kind of wallpaper should rebrand it as inexpensive high-tech (but low cost) Faraday shielding. And maybe the defense agency could save a few billion dollars by using an off-the-shelf solution. Nah.

    --

    Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

  55. I know a man who had this in the Eighties... by qtp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The computer room (floor, walls, and ceiling) was lined with akluminized wallpaper, the window had an aluminum screen. His own home-built faraday cage.

    As he did not have wi-fi, I beleive that he was more concerned with preventing eavesdropping of his CRTs rf feild. There were other CS guys (from the uni) who did the same thing.

    As he my first real programming teacher, I always assumed that the tech to "tempest" a CRT was available then. Tapping WiFi is undoubtably a magnitude simpler.

    --
    Read, L
    1. Re:I know a man who had this in the Eighties... by djeaux · · Score: 1
      Hmmm... Would this wi-fi blocking stuff work against Van Eck Phreaking?

      Or more importantly, does the average /.'er need to worry about Van Eck Phreaking?

      (The closest I've ever come to worrying about this was my old college girlfriend who would say (while we were ensconced in the back of my van), "Eck! Freak!"

      --
      "Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
    2. Re:I know a man who had this in the Eighties... by qtp · · Score: 1

      Would this wi-fi blocking stuff work against Van Eck Phreaking?

      That's exactly what it was for, but I never learned the term until I read an article on /. a few years ago.

      I'm not sure that it was possible during the eighties, but there were definately some people who beleived that it was.

      --
      Read, L
    3. Re:I know a man who had this in the Eighties... by swillden · · Score: 1

      The computer room (floor, walls, and ceiling) was lined with akluminized wallpaper, the window had an aluminum screen. His own home-built faraday cage. As he did not have wi-fi, I beleive that he was more concerned with preventing eavesdropping of his CRTs rf feild

      Could someone with a bit better memory of college physics comment on the effectiveness of this application?

      My memory is that a Faraday cage blocks signals from outside the cage, but if the flux originates from inside it propagates through the cage with no problem whatsoever. Maybe a little distortion?

      I would think that this RF-blocking wallpaper absorbs the waves, rather than conducting them like the walls of a Faraday cage would.

      Can someone with a clue comment?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:I know a man who had this in the Eighties... by Jott42 · · Score: 1

      As it uses an FSS, it (probably) reflects the waves. If we build a cage of the material, no signal would get out or into the cage in the stopband of the FSS. Other frequencies would be unaffected. The waves on the inside would bounce around until they were absorbed in other materials (building, furniture, people etc.) Some power is also lost at each reflection as the metal in the FSS in not perfectly conducting.

  56. I wonder by BCW2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    if the foil coated sheathing panels put under the siding of some houses does the same thing? Or someone might make a fabric version to be used like Tyvek as a house wrap during construction. Then everything stays in the house.

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  57. Damn straight. by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    Give me about 200m of the stuff by next week. Maybe that way people will stop phoning me up to whinge about problems with kit I didn't really support even when I did work for the company. And if I see or hear one more fucking thing about the Big Brother fight...

  58. Hospitals are wired too... by Big+Sean+O · · Score: 2, Informative

    Frankly, WIFI in a hospital could be overkill. If you're doing a hospital right, just wire each room.

    I was at a hospital the other day and they have terminals in each room. Doctors can log in, take notes, issue orders all from a terminal.

    A mobile WIFI PDA can get lost or stolen, which is bad if you want to stay compliant with HIPAA and retain your JHACO certification.

    Sure, Spock and McCoy use the tricorder when they're on the planet, but when they're in Sick Bay, McCoy always uses that computer screen behind the bed. Just another example of how we're converging on the star trek universe. (Wake me when we get to women in velour miniskirts).

    --
    My father is a blogger.
    1. Re:Hospitals are wired too... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Mmmm... blue alien chicks ...

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:Hospitals are wired too... by jerdenn · · Score: 1

      That's why the WiFi Pad doesn't actually store any data, it merely connects to the main system through a wireless uplink. It also has a login timout, with either manual or biometric login.

      I work in the hospital / IT field. WiFi in hospitals can be a huge boon to productivity.

  59. National Security by Moblaster · · Score: 5, Funny

    I keep telling my mom that my room is classified and off-limits. Now with my Stealth-fighter wallpaper, I'll be able to call the Feds any time she breaches the perimeter.

  60. Health implications by Saiai+Hakutyoutani · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't this kind of wallpaper mean a significant health benefit for anyone living next to a high-voltage power line? Add a few panels to your roof as well, and you've got a house that lets TV/radio signals etc. in, but keeps low-frequency radiation out.

  61. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl by PTDC · · Score: 1

    If you read the article you'd see that it only blocks certain frequencies allowing you to use phones etc. Also, blocking wlan's is the whole point, you can use them from within the wallpaper screen but not without.

  62. That's the RIAA's rationale. by originalhack · · Score: 3, Interesting
    So flog the person who talks on the cell phone in the theater with the nearest appropriate object. It's time to stop blocking signals because some people might abuse them. It's also time to realize that we shouldn't keep people from using computers and recording equipment because some people might violate copyrights.

    There is no reason to block those of us who put the phone in silent.

    I glance at the callerid if the phone vibrates. When an apparrently urgent call comes in either in a theater or in a restaurant, you hit answer and walk out the door. Anybody calling me in the off hours is accustomed to calling a second time if I ignore the first (calling again a moment after the first attempt is a good signal of urgency) and waiting for me to get out the door between the time I hit answer and the time I speak. Most also make sure they call my cell FROM their cell so that callerid works and I can just call them back.

  63. so-- the obvious solution by way2trivial · · Score: 4, Insightful

    wrap the drug infusion pumps...
    I bet it would cost a lot less than wallpapering the entire hospital...

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  64. Relaxation by beforewisdom · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now the truly paranoid can come home from work and relax by taking their foil hats off - unless - the material used to make the wall paper is fault.

    Heh, this whole story is probably fictitious. A plot from the government to get citizens who are on to them to let down their good.

    Phew, almost got suckered in.

  65. Definitive answer: Statistically insignificant by ccmay · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Regarding health issues, there is no definitve answer.

    There is a definitive answer when you are talking about non-ionizing radiation like radio waves: if there is any deleterious health effect, it is so small that it cannot be reproducibly measured even in studies involving tens of thousands of individuals.

    Pampered Western worry-warts would do well to drop their concerns about non-ionizing radiation from power lines and cell phones, and worry more about things with real consequences like what they eat and drink and smoke.

    For that matter, they need to get over their fixation with low levels of ionizing radiation as well. Many millions of lives could be saved if nuclear power became universal, and oil became a useless pollutant best left in the ground.

    -ccm

    --
    Too much Law; not enough Order.
    1. Re:Definitive answer: Statistically insignificant by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1
      Many millions of lives could be saved if nuclear power became universal, and oil became a useless pollutant best left in the ground.
      Nuclear power doesn't replace oil; it replaces coal. Oil accounts for only 2% of US electricity production, while nuclear accounts for 20%, and coal 50%. (Source) Of course, coal has its own problems, and getting rid of coal-fired plants is still a good goal.
      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    2. Re:Definitive answer: Statistically insignificant by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if Nuclear power became widespread, and breeder reactors made it, finally, 'too cheap to meter', automobiles and transportation could become electric, either directly or through hydrogen-based engines. In a 'too cheap to meter' economy, any other form of energy would immediately become 'too expensive to be worth it.' All those oil-producing regions would become immediately irrelevant, etc.

      Not sure if it's worth wide adoption of breeder reactors, though, at least not today.

      --
      resigned
  66. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, by lost_n_mad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know at least one restaurant that would use it. After having dealt with pricks who won't get off the phone to place an order, management has been looking for a way to do away with cell phone signals. I'm also sure that many movie theaters would also be interested in being able to make sure that no one can get a call in the actual theaters.
    Sure there are going to be some home users, but let's face it, for some businesses this will be a god send.

    --
    TANSTAAFL
  67. FSS is a kind of high-tech foil. by Jott42 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The FSS, or frequency selective surface, which is used in the panels described in the article works as a frequency selective filter to an electromagnetic wave. The one by the british firm is used as a stop band filter, which lets everything except WiFi-frequencies pass. It is also possible to make FSS which works as pass-band filters, usually for radar applications. (Stealth planes incorporates FSS in order to have a reflecting surface for the enemys radar, but which is still transparent for the planes own radar.)

    So it is very different from ordinary aluminium foil. Foil wallpaper and window treatments have been available for quite a while, both for security applications and for people concerned about electromagnetic radiation. But these blocks all frequencies.

  68. well, stick an aerial *outside* your house! by real_smiff · · Score: 1

    why let the signals in? why not just put an aerial on the roof (which i already have, and most people in the UK have - made for TV and work fine for FM radio aswell. even when people switch to satellite they usually still have it). unless you want to take mobile phone calls in your house, i guess, but that's a different range anyway?

    --

    This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

  69. RF Proof clothes? by freeduke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That could be cool to build RF proof clothes with a tissue that has the same properties as this wallpaper. So that you could hear your cell phone, without fearing for your health! ok, problem arise when you put it in one of your pockets and wait for a call...

    1. Re:RF Proof clothes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That could be cool to build RF proof clothes with a tissue that has the same properties as this wallpaper. So that you could hear your cell phone, without fearing for your health! ok, problem arise when you put it in one of your pockets and wait for a call...

      One of the jeans companies already makes a style that includes a foil-lined (or shielded?) pocket. Pretty sure I saw it show up as a SlashDot article last summer.

  70. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl by markxz · · Score: 1

    I guess you can use WLAN inside your apartment, as long as you use this kind of wallpaper on your outside walls only. Then the radio waves can pass through the inner walls, though not outside (your garden, e.g.).

    Would this assume that your house is windowless (as in those glass things you see through)

  71. you sir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are a moron.

  72. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl by SoSueMe · · Score: 1

    Two TV antennas met on a rooftop and got married.
    The wedding ceremony was a bust, but the reception was great!

  73. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl by dossen · · Score: 3, Informative

    Reading The Fine Article is naturally out of the question, this being /., but it would have told you that the FSS (Frequency Selective Surface) panels can be applied to many surfaces, including glass. One must assume that it does not significantly deteriorate your ability to look through the glass, since it was specifically mentioned.

  74. Kirk, I grow fatigued by all this Wi-Fi talk ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... on the front page. It's a very shallow subject but maybe it needs a section of its own or a new site (Wifidot.com).

  75. My friend's neighbors... by Fuzzle · · Score: 0

    My friend's neighbors would probably like some of this, since I'm cruising on their wifi right now. GO IRVING ST, DC!

  76. But what if by gotr00t · · Score: 1

    I don't HAVE a cell phone? Sure, its terribly inconvinent, and I'm probably in the minority, but how is that different than having a cell phone and not being able to use it? Are you saying that people are _expected_ to have cell phones?

    1. Re:But what if by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that people are _expected_ to have cell phones?

      We appear to be getting there. I don't have one, and am not at all perturbed that I am unreachable for a significant amount of each day. There are people who fly into a panic at the very idea however.

      --
      resigned
  77. Wax it! by clone22 · · Score: 1

    I developed a car wax that aborbs radar wavelengths. Unfortunately it has to be a few centimeters thick to work.

    --
    Ask me about my vow of silence!
  78. It's what defense contractors, the government, ... by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

    From the "radiations can be harmfull" department, I know a few green-minded persons that will be very happy to get that material, because they are concerned with what radiations are imposed on their bodies by high-tension electricity pillars and sometimes by the nice, esthetical RF cell-phone towers.

    It's not to be alarmist, but those towers do emit a LOT of radiation, and some effects have been seen on animals (notably, chickens that were rendered sterile, i.e. the eggs never completed maturation, and you got 100% carcass-in-an-egg where you should have had a nice yellow piping bunch of future chickens)

    Maybe to shield ourselves, schools, nurseries, hospitals...would be a good idea.

    I can have my cell call rerouted to my land line automatically nowadays,so this is no real problem...

    As for the rest, constant exposure to radiations of any kind can be harmfull...

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
  79. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl by bcmm · · Score: 1

    YES!!!! Of course!!!

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  80. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl by operagost · · Score: 1

    I mean, how and why did you have to sneak a political troll in there? You opinion of these men has absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand, yet you were moderated up. If the operations at a facility require complete isolation of RF emissions, this material is quite useful. It has nothing to do with whether you agree with the these guys, who don't even have anything to do with the topic! Or do you think that all the doings of the UK and US defense (defence, for you UK trolls) departments should be flying about the air so that everyone can learn how to make advanced weapons?

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  81. Somehow parents have managed for millennia... by BlueTT · · Score: 1

    I suspect your parents and even your parents' parents were able to go to movies on occasion without needing to be instantly reachable...

  82. They're called pagers... by BlueTT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most doctors still even carry them.

    They vibrate and let the owner know they need to contact someone without annoying the other few hundred people around them...

  83. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, by operagost · · Score: 1

    They can also make sure to lose half their business. The phones aren't the problem, it's the rude people. Post signs saying you won't allow the use of phones, and kick out the individuals that disrupt your business.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  84. Reuse by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sure, the RF power it absorbs is tiny. But is there a way to capture that power for reuse? Like a solar collector, powered by our RF devices?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Reuse by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      If I lived near a broadcast tower, I would seriously consider building an antenna and tuned tank circuit to gather and store some of the broadcast RF energy. If they're radiating 50,000 watts, they probably won't notice me tapping off a few hundred of it. And such a circuit would be all passive, which means I'm not actively interfering with their signal.

      --
      resigned
    2. Re:Reuse by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      If modern radio devices can work with tiny incident RF wattages, maybe building a trap & storage device is worth it. Of course, solar is better, but no exposed area might be available, eg. with interior only room, or occupied roof deck, or stealth/camoflaged installation. A trap might actually reclaim enought energy to be reused by the radio devices. How tiny a load could such a trap handle? More to the point, how efficient can such a trap be made, to absorb maximum incident RF?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Reuse by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      A popular hardware project years ago for people into home-built radio projects was a radio with two tuning sections. The first tuning section is used to tune in the most powerful radio station on the band, and rectify a portion of it's power. Said power is then used to amplify the signal of the smaller signal that you'd rather listen to.

      When I first read of said project, which has been implemented more than once, I noted it as an excellent example of a clever hardware hack.

      --
      resigned
  85. MuMetal too. by Nick+Driver · · Score: 1

    You still need a good Faraday cage to block everything.

    You also need to add plenty of Mu-Metal shielding too, to block your magnetic emissions.

  86. This is nothing new... by Nybble's+Byte · · Score: 1

    Audiophiles know about such products intended to block RFI, which sort of looks like light gray blotter paper. A little bit goes a long way in high end audio applications, and not everyone agrees they like the effect.

  87. then put the damn phone on VIBRATE and call back by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm a parent.

    That's nice. Put your phone on vibrate. When it rings and says "Home" (or worse, the sitter's cell phone #) get up, go into the hallway, and answer it. If you're not fast enough, witness the wonder of using the "missed calls" list. This is also why god invented text messaging, which we Americans just haven't seemed to figure out quite yet. "Nick is screaming for his ba-wa-na, what/where is that?" "Joey ran into the wall, at e-room, hes ok but need med insurance info". Etc.

    Incidentally, for well over half a decade people went to the cinema, dinner, etc and left their kids behind with a sitter...with no cell phone. Don't give me this "I'm a parent, I simply must be within seconds contact of my children at all times" bullshit.

  88. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

    "This wallpaper blocks a lot of RF radation. This means that you can not use WLAN, cellphones and terrestrial TV/Radio. Is this really what you want?"

    How soon can we fit it to trains?

  89. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you saying it still allows interterrestrial TV and Radio?

    Sign me up!

  90. A two-edged sword, a two-sided paper by RAID+-5 · · Score: 1

    Hey does this stuff block RFID? How about the little strips in the spines of library books? Or maybe inventory tags from Bloomingdales? If you shaped the stuff into a torus or a Klein bottle, would it block everything or what?

  91. Radiant Barrier by MaxBlue · · Score: 1

    I have a radiant barrier in my house and I've always wondered if it blocks Wi-Fi or not.

    Any electrical engineers in the audiance?

    --
    RTFM? FTFM!!
  92. i hope they use this on airplanes by kesteloot · · Score: 1

    so that i don't have to worry about my cell phone taking down the plane.

  93. good idea but... by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    what if terrorists use it to jam UWB (ultrawide band) scanners used by law-enforcement to see what's on the other side of the wall?

    Or even if a normal wife-beater Joe lines his walls and then does something criminal. Or even a hostage situation at some office building with the lining (assuming it happens to use the frequencies that the UWB scanner relies on or something)?

    Hell, CowboyNeal will finally have his privacy!

  94. Re:so-- the obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better yet, just wrap everyone's cell phone.

  95. Proverb by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

    wrap the drug infusion pumps...
    I bet it would cost a lot less than wallpapering the entire hospital...


    A fool wraps the world in leather, a wise man wraps his feet in leather.

    And now, my interpretation...
    A foolish woman wraps the world in spikes. An even more foolish woman wraps her feet in them.

    1. Re:Proverb by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      An even more foolish woman wraps her feet in them.

      Ah, but when she treads on you with those spike heels, you'd best not call her foolish.

      --
      resigned
  96. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, by lost_n_mad · · Score: 1

    Ah, but that will kill the business too. Much better to have people come in and say, "Damn, I can never get a signal in here."

    --
    TANSTAAFL
  97. parent!=control freak by nick_davison · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm a parent.

    No, you're an over protective control freak who just happens to also be a parent.

    Parents have managed to be away from their children for two hours or more for millenia without the world exploding. Look out the window, the human race seems to have made it this far just fine.

    Some bad things will happen to your children in life. That's actually natural. The child who's never been allowed to fall, get a cold, cut themselves or anything else will be chronically ill prepared to live a life outside of your protective bubble.

    I know it's scary but let it happen. It's better for the kid to have some [limited] exposure to the reall world. They'll grow up much better adjusted for it.

    Leave them with a sitter. Tell the sitter where you're going and, in a major emergency, they can call the theater itself. It's worked for thousands of years, it can work for you too.

    1. Re:parent!=control freak by swillden · · Score: 1

      No, you're an over protective control freak who just happens to also be a parent.

      You must be talking to someone else.

      I'm not a control freak, I just figure it's a good thing if I can be contacted in case my permission is required for medical procedures.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:parent!=control freak by winwar · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "I'm not a control freak, I just figure it's a good thing if I can be contacted in case my permission is required for medical procedures."

      If it is a life threatening situation your permission will not be required. The doctor(s) will do what is needed. All other situations can wait. The message left on your phone will be waiting there when you leave the blocked area (theater).

      Look, if the theater can dictate other policies (no talking during the movie, don't bring in outside food, etc.) then they have every right to block cell phone signals. This crap about having to be in touch for emergency reasons is just that, crap. Based on that line of reasoning, we should be allowed to bring in outside food because we might have an allergic reaction to an ingredient in the theater's food and die. That line of reasoning doesn't work because the chance of it happening is small, because you don't have to eat the food (or be in touch), and because it is a private business. But the risk of that happening (allergic reaction) is far greater than your proposed bogeyman.

      If you must be in touch 24/7, you obviously won't be able to go there. That's life. The reality is, no one has to be in touch 24/7. Hell, even the president of the US probably cannot reached 24/7 (based on history) and he is the only person I can think of that really has a need to be able to be contacted 24/7.

    3. Re:parent!=control freak by nick_davison · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OK, the definition of a control freak:

      A person who incorrectly weights the value of preventative measures against their relative costs.

      Yes, it's wonderful to be contactable in case your permission is required for medical procedures. How many times has that been necessary? How many procedures that really can't wait for you to be contacted do they actual stop because they can't contact you?

      Now weigh that against the cost. Even if it's a small cost per instance, there are a massive number of instances of jerks ruining movies, meals and everything else making unnecessary phonecalls, with phones ringing, etc.

      A rational person can accept that certain environments have a great cost for permitting cell phone usage than the cost of not doing so.

      That only becomes more so when there are valid options for those establishments (such as them having a posted emergency number, having call forwarding available, a single lit 911-only emergency phone placed in the theater). Also, if it truly isn't worth it to you - you personally don't have to go. You can go to a cinema that does permit cell phones along with all the other parents, teenagers and everyone else who feels more entitled - that doesn't mean no one else should be permitted the option.

      So, if a rational person can accept that the overall cost of permitting cellphones in certain environments is greater than overall cost of blocking them, the rational response is to permit their blocking and allow individuals to make their decisions as to whether or not to go there.

      To be unable to agree with permitting rational choices to be made, because it affects your possible ability to deal with one exceptionally unlikely circumstance implies that, no, you can't correctly value the situation and, yes, you are a control freak.

    4. Re:parent!=control freak by swillden · · Score: 1

      you can't correctly value the situation and, yes, you are a control freak.

      *I'm* not the one wanting to control what people can and cannot do inside a movie theater.

      Just which side of this debate is trying to impose control on which?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  98. lining the walls with lead? by dougmc · · Score: 4, Informative
    Is this the next take on lining the walls with lead?
    No, it's not. To block a RF signal all you need is a faraday cage -- which can even have lots of holes in it (like a wire cage) as long as the holes are a good deal smaller than the wavelength of the signal you're trying to keep out.

    Wrapping the whole places in tinfoil would work nicely as well, as long as you don't leave any holes. No need to go to anything as heavy as lead, unless you're trying to block things like X-rays or gamma rays.

    1. Re:lining the walls with lead? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      you mean dense, not heavy. X and Gamma rays are small, that's why lead is effective. It's one of the denser elements, so the holes between atoms are smaller, keeping such radiation from going through. Which weighs more: a kilo of feathers or a kilo of lead? And which takes up less space? Even chicken wire or hardware cloth can be effective for certain frequencies.

      --
      Not a sentence!
  99. picking the hard way by dillee1 · · Score: 1

    I do found that pulling some fucking wires are far easier than 1) move all funitures 2) get a ladder 3) transport 100s of sqfts of expenisve RF reflective wallpaper 4) and stick them on all walls, windows and doors People just perfer the hard way don't they?

  100. Tin Foil Hat by manganese4 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Now if Think Geek will only sell Tin Foils hats lined with this stuff, we will be all set.

    --
    I make my face look like this and concerned words come out.
  101. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl by tcgroat · · Score: 1

    RF blocking "wall paper" has been around for quite a while. It's one of the more esthetically acceptable methods for "architectural shielding", and is widely used by those who consider their data worth stealing (military, government, high-end financial, etc.). The unique feature of this material is its frequency selectivity. It will block the WiFi network from being intercepted or jammed from an adjacent building, but you still listen to the radio and use a wireless phone.

  102. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

    Naw. We got satellite, and the old antenna mast wasn't working well anyway. I yanked the mast last summer and now there is a nest of birds living in the small hole in the roof eave where the mast ran through.

    At least I think they are birds. They might be flying mind-ray antennas.

    --
    resigned
  103. DIY Stealth Bomber by Zebra_X · · Score: 1

    Just get some epoxy, and some of this new fangled wall paper, and we can all have stealth bombers of our very own.

  104. traffic analysis by r00t · · Score: 1

    You can tell a lot from encrypted traffic.

    Who's transmitting?
    When do they go to work?
    Are they on vacation?
    Is something up? (lots of activity)
    What time zone? (of a distant network peer)

    Based on packet timing, one might even guess
    at the distance being communicated over.

  105. RFID by bigbigbison · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So I could take this to a store, wrap an rfid tagged item in it and steal it? So you are saying that a new technology can easilly be circumvented by criminals and therefore only serves to annoy and monitor law abiding citizens? That's umpossible!

    --
    http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
  106. No, they didn't. by xilmaril · · Score: 1
    People have been parents for millenia before the cell phone was invented and did just fine or we would not be here.
    while I don't like people shouting into their cell phones about trashy gossip, or anything else for that matter, as much as the next person, I think this sort of comment really needs to be corrected.
    People didn't do just fine for millenia. They had ridiculously high infant mortality rates. and plagues, for that matter. .

    the comment shown above was largely the result of severe bitterness against the amish. pay it no mind
    1. Re:No, they didn't. by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      I have very little knowledge of the Amish so I will not comment on them.
      What I meant is that before cell phones people did fine as parents, not that the overall living condition has not improved over the past milenia.
      I think having a cell phone at you at all times is of no big influence to the wellfare of your child, except at times when you are with your child at the moment it gets an accident and you can call help. But even then your cell phone does not need to be on. Proper (health) care and vaccination have shown to have a beneficial effect on humans in general and children specifically, but that was not the point I was trying to make.
      The only reason I can think of, is that it allows the parent to receive information about the child. If an emergency would come up while the parent is separated from the child a capable babysitter would probably be much more usefull as one that would only know how to contact the parent.
      The point I was trying to make is that people have been able to leave their children alone or in care of others for milenia, without the means of being constantly updated about their status, so why should this be suddenly different? Is the need for constant information so great that it prevails over everything else?
      My cell phone is off, except when I need to call someone, or on duty/standby for work. For everything else there is my answering machine, and e-mail/ICQ. If I am not within 5 minutes of those I either am in my car, where using the phone is not allowed, in a meeting, on holiday, at a concert, or some other place I do not want to be bothered.

      In the case of cell phone's I do think "ingorance is bliss" sometimes.

      P.S. Do not start about "your child is in hospital and dying, please come quick". That also holds for brothers/sisters/husband/wife/father/mother/best frend/etc. it applies to anyone, not parents specifically. No offence meant, but does the minute chance of this happening and it actually making a difference realy outweigh the day-to-day annoyance, not for me. People afraid of such odds should not drive a car, always wear a helmet, etc.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    2. Re:No, they didn't. by Cecil · · Score: 1

      People also used to eat with their hands off dirty floors and tables, and thought that bleeding people with leeches to get rid of the bad blood was the best way to cure diseases.

      Surely cellphones are entirely responsible for the majority of the quality of life we have these days. They're the panacea of humanity. We couldn't ever live without them.

  107. Yawn by ecloud · · Score: 1

    1.) Stealth wallpaper goes on sale.
    2.) Terrorist buys it and builds a makeshift stealth bomber drone from a model plane kit.
    3.) Sale of wallpaper is banned for national security reasons.
    4.) People with this wallpaper on their walls rip it down and put it on ebay.
    5.) Profit!

  108. use it with mobiles by bobblebob · · Score: 0

    I wonder if this stuff could used with mobile phones to stop harmful radio waves frying the brain. It could be placed down one side of the phone

  109. Doesn't solve everything, but helps. by mcc · · Score: 1

    One thing that comes to mind here is that this technology, if used throughout a building, would do a neat job of defeating most bugs. Sure you can get inside to plant the bug, but the bug is not going to be able to transmit its signal to anything outside the building, or maybe even within it, so it isn't nearly as useful...

  110. Re:then put the damn phone on VIBRATE and call bac by swillden · · Score: 2, Informative

    That's nice. Put your phone on vibrate. When it rings and says "Home" (or worse, the sitter's cell phone #) get up, go into the hallway, and answer it.

    That's what I do.

    But it wouldn't work if theaters blocked RF.

    Really, there's no reason for parents and others to lose the ability to be contacted during a movie and, as you pointed out, there's no reason for that ability to disturb others, either.

    The problem of phones ringing during movies is a social problem, not a technical one.

    Incidentally, for well over half a decade people went to the cinema, dinner, etc and left their kids behind with a sitter

    True, but parents have much more peace of mind knowing that they can be contacted, if it's necessary. And there's no reason to take that away just because *other* people are inconsiderate.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  111. Safety First! by Mountain33 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Great Idea! And when there is a fire in a building that has this, and it blocks all Emergency Radio communication so that Firefighters lives are in danger, we can all thank the far sighted users of this miracle wallpaper.

    So lets put this in theatres, and hospitals, and other places where the publics safety and welfare is not as important as blocking anoying cell phones and protecting wifi data (that wep/wpa and a prudent semi-inteligent network admin could protect).

    Products like this have a place in small uses but any large use would be a safety hazard that isn't worth the risk.

  112. RF-Blocking Wallpaper by LXtran_arrow · · Score: 1

    Looks like another product in search of a market. If they don't see to the floors and ceilings, there isn't going to be any blockage. And windows, HVAC vents, etc. are right out. I've been building Faraday cages since the 1950's when we found that we needed them to test our HAM radios. During my 13 years at Tektronix I helped tune several cages that the RF engineers used for similar, but commercial, purposes. The wallpaper may be nice, and may even work. But you can bet that the business model relies heavily on the consultants and the contractors provided to make it all work ... .

  113. RTFM!!! by Jott42 · · Score: 1

    Read the article. The wallpaper uses an FSS, or frequency selective surface. To compare it a simple wire mesh is about equivalent to say that the heat insulation on the wings of the space shuttle is made of the same material as the tile from which you build a fireplace in your home.
    One is very much more advanced than the other...

    And that got moderated informative...

  114. I'm not sure how conclusive this could be... by doublebackslash · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure how conclusive this could be, but I just wraped my cell-phone in aluminium foil (1 layer), and toutched my computer case and it for a ground. When I opened it up the cell phone showed no signal for a few seconds before it caught the signal again.
    So, unless this wallaper is cheper than foil, I'd go w/ foil, cause it would also make a farady cage if grounded.
    Windows could be a prob, but some aluminium on the far side of the blinds would help =)
    Someone try this with a w-fi card and tell me the results, lets get a knowledge base goin here!
    --
    3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 10582097494459230781640628620899862803482534211706

    --
    md5sum /boot/vmlinuz
    d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e /boot/vmlinuz
    1. Re:I'm not sure how conclusive this could be... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Is there any transparent aluminum that can substitute for glass? Or, is transparent aluminum just in Star Trek?

      No, imagine when the feds realize that aluminum or steel structure home are interfering with their desire to electronically vacuum sweep a home, particularly if an after-market kit permits an owner to scan their home from across the street and tune it such that they keep internal signals from getting out, or better yet, the kit subsitutes plain-language text for random or other assembled text, such as passages from the Bible, Moby's Dick, Charlotte's Web, and such.

      THAT is a product IDEA I have just thought of. I submit it to the public under Creative Commons, CopyLeft, CopyRight, and any other new, patents-negating rights-sharing scheme available to the world. If you who maybe be reading this with a productization-minded interest think you can enjoin readers or myself from this idea, you are WRONG!

      Help or leave a product alone, we don't need stinking patents covering simple, easy-to-reproduce, non-novel ideas just because somebody wants to make a friggin' BUCK

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  115. Rubber walls by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    If it included a thick layer of rubber, it'd be a must have for a lot of Slashdotters here!

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  116. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl by AndyL · · Score: 1

    You're saying that with this technology I could make a building so that the people inside could not use their cellphones, and you think that's not useful?

  117. I have this technology already by hqm · · Score: 1

    It's called "Aluminum Siding".

    1. Re:I have this technology already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have aluminum siding on the walls in your house? I'd rather use the wallpaper.

  118. how about we just.... by DustinB · · Score: 1

    make transmitters that send a signal to force the cell to go into silent or 'no text msging' more or 'no transmitting or you will kill someone in this hospital' mode... use encryption and fancy stuff to ensure authorization..

  119. Desktop wallpaper! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only you could fix Windows security holes by just changing the wallpaper too!

  120. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, by kjd · · Score: 1

    Better to have doctors, businessmen, firefighters, etc, avoid your place of business because they can't receive emergency pages there?

  121. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl by orcus · · Score: 1

    YES!
    This is just the thing for restaurants, movie theatres, shows and other places where people with cell phones act like assholes.
    No need for the active jammers that the FCC frowns on now....

    --
    First they burn books, then they burn people.
  122. Flechettes by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    One way to deal with that is to "flechette" the target environment in advance of bombing. This works for and against anyone seeing such RF-blocking paper to be useful. It means that if you can flechetted a suspected target and then send over a satellite or other recon device, you can tip off your hand but force an opponent to have to move in extra defenses, move the to-be-targetted equipment, or be forced to shut it down, rendering it non-mission-capable for so long that other offensive operations can be reinforced with equipment, ordnance or devices that otherwise would be expended trying to flesh out and destroy targets.

    This means anyone who can get close enough to a suspected shielded objective need only devote minimal resources on their OWN timetable to blow up said targets or flechette them, as if to torment those who think the wallpaper is going to be allowed an unfettered existence.

    Now if the emissions to be masked are not normally detectable except from high orbit, then the attempt to "flechette" a target might be viable only to a satellite-owning power/nation.

    David Syes,
    unholy Tactical Action Officer (unofficial)

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  123. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, by lost_n_mad · · Score: 1

    Generally they avoid fine dining because it takes too long when they are on duty, and costs too much if they have to leave.

    --
    TANSTAAFL
  124. Re:then put the damn phone on VIBRATE and call bac by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    How about this:

    The cell phone carriers work out a plan with owners of hospitals, theaters, museums and the like so that merely ENTERING the premises forces the phone to go to vibrate if it is designed to vibrate, and silent if there is no vibrator. Alternatively, the phone can emit ONE chirp, regardless of the mode it's in, then the carrier can auto-respond to the caller, stating:

    Please stand by for up to 25 seconds; we have chirped your party and you should allow them 25-45 seconds to move to a place suitable to unmask this phone call.

    If the party is wheelchair bound, or is sitting on the toilet in a public place and feels embarrassed to answer whilst taking, ummm, issuing a dump, then the caller could have an autoresponder plan to let them hit a pre-designated/customized button code to send the caller a request that they give x number of minutes for the called party to reply. This way, if you are in a theater enjoying a movie, you can hit the button telling the caller to wait 45 minutes or so. This is useful in packed venues when you are conscientious enough to not crawl over patrons in those annoyingly-tight rows forcing people to scrunch up 45 degrees in the direction of travel of someone coming or going.

    THIS I MY IDEA: I submit it to the public under CREATIVE COMMONS and COPYLEFT.

    Unless anyone legitimately has a patent dated PRIOR TO THIS POSTING, your future developments have NO bearing or restrictive powers over my RIGHT to build a product based on what I typed here, nor do you have ANY right to restrict others to whom I just conferred this idea.

    Patents applicants must be FORCED to demonstrate that their "novel" idea will be truly novel by demonstrating that the idea cannot be duplicated in under 4 hours with run-of-the-mill/generic tools.

    David Syes

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  125. FCC Rule on interference by The+Conductor · · Score: 1

    I am not up to speed on the finer points of the FCC rules on interference, but some time in the mid-90's the FCC stopped caring about interference that was limited to private property. It happened in the oh-so-FCC fashion: nobody was renewing their "experimental site" licences (that listed what frequencies you were doing development work in), and then eventually you couldn't find anyone to renew or issue one even if you asked, so, fait accompli, a liberalization in the rules.

    Just ask any HAM how much enforcement is going on in the HAM bands, and if they can pin down when it stopped.

    1. Re:FCC Rule on interference by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind there is a difference in a device that causes interference actively and passively. since the wallpaper would be controllable (only blocks where it is installed) it is not the same as a device that causes RF that interferes with transmission in a bad way (like a radio device).

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  126. Sound Geeks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This might be helpful to sound engineers recording live. Using it in the control room could improve the S/N ratio, and accidentally forgetting to turn off your cell phone wouldn't be an issue since it's normally picked up by the amps and monitors when someone calls.

  127. Tapping fiber by Myself · · Score: 1
    ...technology exists which allows the light paths in a fibre to be continuously altered in much the same way that band switching (rapidly switching transmissions across multiple frequencies) is already used by the military to evade listening. A military installation is not only likely to make use of this technology but would implement it across multiple fibres.


    I certainly hope they'd use multiple fibers. Defeating wavelength hopping in a single fiber would be as simple as using a wideband receiver, which is the standard except in DWDM networks where narrowly selective transmitters and receivers are needed.

    While you make a valid point that tapping multiple fibers would be a pain in the ass, I don't believe the additional hassle would provide any measurable gain in security. At the worst case, a linear increase in fiber number means a linear increase in time required to make the taps. In most cases I'd imagine the cost to implement such a system would exceed to cost to defeat it. Why would they resort to this when crypto works, it's relatively cheap, and it doesn't necessarily reveal its existence until the enemy has already made the tap.
  128. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl by RMH101 · · Score: 1

    ...i reckon this is only advertised so that defence contractors can order it with a straight face. if they put in orders for multiple rolls of kitchen foil and suggested sticking it to the walls, they'd get laughed at, but "Faraday Cage Wallpaper" goes through accounts better.

  129. sure by RMH101 · · Score: 1

    ...we'll just junk this $5m equipment so you can piss about with your cell phone. PRIORITIES. it doesn't necessarily mean it WILL be affected by RF, it's enough that it MIGHT.

  130. Re:Great for paranoid nuts, useless for real peopl by jonadab · · Score: 1

    If it blocks cellphones, I want it for the library where I work. All of my
    coworkers would agree.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  131. Hmmm... by bigchris · · Score: 1

    ... just like a firewall - on your wall!

  132. The begining of the End? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One has to wonder what widespread useage of this material would mean for the warwalking and warchalking community.

    In the long term, it could mean less 'accidently' free internet access, and perhaps the defense of "Well if he wanted to protect his network, he'd have shielded his house."

    In the short term, it will be likely be making a profit for those who prey on the technophobes.