Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software Privacy Science

Newly Declassified Window Film Keeps Out Snoops 193

Posted by kdawson from the pricey-tinfoil-hat-for-your-house dept.
An anonymous reader writes to describe a newly declassified window film from CPFilms Inc. that could give war drivers fits. Scientific American has the story, which includes a rather dismissive comment by Bruce Schneier. "Once manufactured under an exclusive contract with the US government, this recently declassified window film is now available to the public. But don't expect to see it on store shelves anytime soon. Currently, it's only available directly from the manufacturer, and at prices that will likely make it prohibitive for all but the wealthiest home owners. The two-millimeter-thick coating can block Wi-Fi signals, cell phone transmissions, even the near-infrared, yet is almost transparent... It can keep signals in (preventing attempts to spy on electronic communications) or out, minimizing radio interference and even the fabled electronics-destroying electromagnetic pulse generated by a nuclear blast."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Newly Declassified Window Film Keeps Out Snoops More

Newly Declassified Window Film Keeps Out Snoops

Comments Filter:

  • War Drivers (Score:5, Funny)

    by nonsequitor ( 893813 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @02:44AM (#19727381)
    Nothing to see here, move along.

  • Like they said in the good ol' days.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by madbawa ( 929673 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @02:44AM (#19727387) Journal
    ...all your signals are belong to us.

  • Does it come as hats? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Buchenskjoll ( 762354 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @02:45AM (#19727397)
    I would like the get rid of the tin foil ...

  • What about the walls? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by d12v10 ( 1046686 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @02:46AM (#19727403)
    I don't know much about radio signals, but what about the walls and paneling? Can they get through that?

    • Re:What about the walls? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by phatvw ( 996438 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @02:54AM (#19727445)
      Walls tend to attenuate EM radiation much more than windows. If a building has a metal frame, which any secure building should, then it is already reasonably secure everywhere except the windows.

      Incidentally, the original article is down - slashdotted, already?. Does this tech work via the Faraday cage [wikipedia.org] principle similar to the mesh on your Microwave oven view window?

    • Re:What about the walls? (Score:5, Informative)

      by arivanov ( 12034 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @04:40AM (#19727903) Homepage
      They can, but you can use foil there. In fact if you have a modern enough house it is likely to have foil in the external wall insulation. Same for the roof. It is also trivial to retrofit (you can just lay it under a plasterboard.

      As a result the doors and the windows remain the sole way in and out for the radiowaves. While special films like the one described in the article can deliver a nearly perfect insulation, they are not necessary.

      If what you are bothered about are script kiddies driving down the street (or in your neigbour's basement) or interference from your neigbour's AP standard K-glass (or similar IR reflective type) will do. In my previous company we did a survey prior to moving into a new office and the drops was by more than 30db in the 802.11b/g band (in layman terms from 95% "quality" to sub 5%). In fact the drop from K-glass was more than the drop through a concrete floor covered by a steel plated grounded raised floor.

      • Re:What about the walls? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @09:17AM (#19729473) Homepage
        Several places make "magenetic paint" you can buy it at home depot. Paint your outer walls and ground it (copper strip going to water pipe below painted over works great. (grounding leeches off EM fields so help reduce reflections and overall background noise.)

        voila, no wifi or cellular.

        Using a special expensive window film is silly, replace your screens with aluminum screens and magically they also no longer pass RF energy.

        I get a kick out of all this "new" stuff coming out. Anyone that owns a home that was re-sided in the 70's and 80's typically has aluminum siding and aluminum screens and therefore is mostly living in a faraday cage. (except roof)

        Most of the new metalized layers on new construction materials (if any is used) dont block RF worth a darn. I tried them all at new construction sites and none were as effective as good old aluminum sheeting and screening.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by crossmr ( 957846 )
          Most people don't have every single window backed by a screen.
          • Yeah, but the hillfolk of the Appalachian mountains don't have WiFi either, so it's a moot point.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by hughk ( 248126 )

      A rebar wall makes a fairly good Faraday cage, but mostly only the pillars are rebar. Many recent office buildings have 100% glass walls. The film would work ok there. On a building with walls, then a lot of signal normally leaks through. Yes, the posters are right in that thicker walls tend to attenuate better but usually they are quite transparent to RF.

      The thing is that at least one of the existing metallized films (3M, I think) used for solar attenuation is quite a good RF blocker. Mobiles certainly

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Andy Dodd ( 701 )
        I was going to comment that there are already quite inexpensive and effective window films that block RF quite well.

        That said, it seems that the big difference between them and this "declassified" one is that it seems to be optically transparent? If you don't need full optical transparency but a darkened tint is acceptable (probably not only acceptable but desirable in many office environments), metallized window tints such as even the cheapo ones sold as aftermarket automotive films will block RF quite we

  • yeah, but.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Raptoer ( 984438 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @02:49AM (#19727411)
    "minimizing radio interference and even the fabled electronics-destroying electromagnetic pulse generated by a nuclear blast."

    yeah, but what about the walls? will the walls block it? if not then this stuff is not useless, but not as effective as one would imagine. not to mention that if a nuke went off I think we would have more problems than some EM pulse coming in through the windows...

    Just make your house into one big Faraday cage, but what about the chimneys?

    what I'm trying (and probably saying) is that you plug a hole, the waves will go through another. (not saying that we shouldn't plug them, just that we can't really stop until it is all sealed, in which case you live in a bubble.)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by posterlogo ( 943853 )
      that and the fact that nothing practical is really bullet proof (pardon the pun). a strong enough EMP will get through this window coating.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by AP2k ( 991160 )
      Even Faraday cages have their limits. Presumably, you would already have aluminum insulation or a faraday cage within the walls.

      However, there is no conceivable way that a plastic film embedded with any sort of thin, transparent conductor will be able to hold back a nuclear EMP blast. I'd hate to be standing next to it and then suddenly be covered with molten, burning plastic. Although I do suppose a nuke going off within a few hundred miles is a tad more important than immoliated.

      Lazy, none physics-knowing

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Magada ( 741361 )
        Goes to show just how much you know about nukes and EMP [wikipedia.org].

      • Re:yeah, but.... (Score:5, Informative)

        by gujo-odori ( 473191 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @05:27AM (#19728089)

        Can't blame the editors. The claim regarding resistance to EMP is a direct quote from (the ad copy embedded in the middle of) TFA. Morever, what TFA has to say about the film and EMP is that it is "capable of minimizing radio interference and even...EMP." They don't say block it, they say minimize it. The effective frequency range of the film is 10 Hz. up to "just shy of visible light" so I'd say they at least have a shot at it.

        Now, EMP is what, again? Oh, yeah, Electro-Magnetic Pulse. Put another way, a really, really strong blast of RF interference. Anything that can completely block cell phone and wifi signals will at least somewhat hold back EMP. TFA goes on to say that one of the things that makes the film so effective is that it's part of a completely package. The film is only one component of what you're buying. Sounds like they probably retrofit the building with some kind of Faraday cage-like gear.

        EMP doesn't melt plastic, it fry's electronics [frys.com]. Well, if you were so close to the hypocenter that the EMP could melt a 2 mm plastic film on the window, that would be the least of your problems, because if you didn't get vaporized at about the same time, the shockwave that arrived shortly thereafter would blow you, the window, and maybe the wall to the other side of the room.

        The EMP they are trying to guard against is the high air burst kind (think huge warhead detonated in LEO over the US east coast) which is intended to take down electrical grids, telephone networks, and as much of everything else electronic as it can. A lot of Soviet (and presumably now Russian) scenarios included such an air burst as an early shot. Get one of those in position undetected and detonate it and you're then in a position to do a couple of things, such as:

        1. Get the other side on the hot line (if it still works, anyway) and tell them "We know we blew your comm capability and you have two minutes to decide to surrender or not
        2. As soon as it detonates, launch a first strike to make sure. If you sufficiently damaged their command and control systems, they won't get many, if any, shots off before your warheads hit their ground-based nuclear assets at the same time your hunter-killer subs are engaging their boomers wherever they can find them

        If you have your buildings protected to the best possible extent by EMP shielding such as that stuff, it might allow you to launch in such a scenario before the other side does. You'd pretty much have to, because the EMP would fry the recon sats that would normally tell you if they were launching or not. You'd have to assume they were.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by AP2k ( 991160 )
          Great, so neither one of you know about inductance? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induc tion [wikipedia.org]

          I dont suppose you would be someone to think that shorting some 20 gauge wire in an electrical socket won't vaporize the wire? Why dont you try picking up a physics book or doing some experiments yourself before commenting on a topic which you obviously do not understand?

          This isn't magic, for fucks sake. A film of plastic doesn't block out magnetic fields of any sort without being even slightly conduct

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Secrity ( 742221 )
          Good post on EMP, although I disagree on the vulnerability of military electronics and telecommunications to EMP.

          EMP was a known threat during the cold war and military electronics were designed to withstand EMP.

          I worked as a technician for AT&T Long Lines during the cold war and saw what was done in order to minimize the impact of EMP on the telephone facilities that were used by the military. As an example, the L-3 long haul coaxial cable system that went from Dranesville,VA and Waldorf, MD
    • For a house? No, this probably isn't practical. But suppose you sell it to law firms, CEOs, and Studios to coat their conference rooms. Despite the clear glass, no signals in or out. Seems a lot more practical, and a lot more likely. I'm guessing the core audience (despite the article's narrow minded author) isn't really rich paranoid people. As far as "plugging a hole" - as I recall most cellphone signals, WiFi, and the like operate within the 900-2400mHz range - IIRC the wave half-height is about the s
    • Exactly. As anyone who has had a leaky sun-roof in their car knows, it's hard to make something water-tight.
      It's even harder to make something air-tight.

      As for making it 'radio-wave-proof'? Pffft - forget it. I record electrical signals from subjects and animals in Faraday cages - let me tell you, _nothing_ keeps out 50 Hz interference.

      If you've got a private signal, just use encryption, ok?
    • "Can't stop the signal Mal...they can never stop...the signal..."
    • Chimneys have bends in them, it's not a straight line access. The same applies to household plumbing and stairwells. Many walls now have insulating foil components, as described elsewhere. And much smaller holes reduce the signal by quite a lot: you don't have to block every photon, just reduce it well below the background noise to be quite secure.

      I can also see it in use in RFID prevalent spaces, such as around loading docks, to block interference from other signals and assure reading the tags correctly.
    • Well, why not apply the film to the interior walls as well, if you're not sure about their imperviousness? Nothing says it can only be applied to glass...

  • Should have better defined "film" (Score:5, Funny)

    by The Orange Mage ( 1057436 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @02:53AM (#19727435) Homepage
    I spent part of the article thinking, "big deal about the price, someone will just torrent it and that'll be that."

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Also, putting it under the "Windows" category is a terrible pun...

  • Cinema Wallpaper (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @03:03AM (#19727491)
    If They could make it into a wallpaper they could apply it to the inside of cinemas so assholes will not sit next to you and text people through the entire film.

    • Re:Cinema Wallpaper (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @04:31AM (#19727849)
      That's what noisemakers are for. A cute little handy device that fills the relevant frequencies with static. Sure, they're illegal here, but they are near impossible to find and provide you with a full film without any cellphone based interruption.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Alterion ( 925335 )
        they're illegal for good reason because they block emergency calls aswell :(. If only the ambulance service had a separate frequency

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Opportunist ( 166417 )
          First, the "wallpaper" would too. And second, there's nothing wrong with using the payphones in the lobby for an emergency call. They do work without money for emergency calls. Not to mention that it's certainly a no-brainer to turn the screamer off when someone needs to make an emergency call.
          • And second, there's nothing wrong with using the payphones in the lobby for an emergency call. They do work without money for emergency calls. Not to mention that it's certainly a no-brainer to turn the screamer off when someone needs to make an emergency call.

            But what about incoming emergency calls (to doctors, firefighters or whoever who might be in the theater right now, and whose help might be needed outside...)

            • Hmm... dunno, what's more likely? That someone who happens to know that you, the doc/firefighter/superhero, are in the theatre walks by outside and sees the emergency, or that someone has enough brains to open the door to the theatre and yell "we need a doc out here DAMN RIGHT NOW! Is there a doc in the house?"
          • Hey genius, what about receiving an emergency call? Does your magical device know to turn itself off when one of my loved ones was just rushed to the hospital? Or is you seeing Transformers uninterrupted more important?

            What needs to be done is just let the phones listen for a certain signal, possibly even over bluetooth since most phones come with that (albeit disabled) but anything would work. This signal would be broadcasting a hint saying "You're in a theater" and then later "The movie is starting". Your

            • Re:Cinema Wallpaper (Score:5, Insightful)

              by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @11:31AM (#19731257) Homepage
              Hey genius, what about receiving an emergency call? Does your magical device know to turn itself off when one of my loved ones was just rushed to the hospital? Or is you seeing Transformers uninterrupted more important?

              This is an interesting theme that pops up every time this sort of discussion takes place. I sometimes get the idea that the entire populace is just shivering with dreaded anticipation - waiting for that fateful cell phone call or text message to tell them that some horrible accident or disease has descended upon family or friend. That if they are out of contact for mere moments, they will live the rest of their lives in anguish because they failed to rush to someone's deathbed for the final conversation.

              It's really OK not to be in touch with everyone 24x7. We are not Borg just yet.

              Turn the damn things off and enjoy life.

              • While this is good advice to the typical person, there are some who truly cannot take a couple of hours out uninterrupted without people dying or companies loosing heaping piles of cash. This precaution isn't for the dork who can't spend ten minutes without hearing the latest piece of gossip about his brother's girlfriend's new boyfriend, it's for doctors and similar professionals for whom time matters.

                So, yes, it would improve a lot of people's lives if they would disconnect from the network for two hours

            • Re:Cinema Wallpaper (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @11:59AM (#19731613)
              Sometimes I wonder how people survived without being reachable 24/7. Seriously, I am old enough to remember those times.

              At the danger of sounding harsh, but what do you expect to do if your loved one is being rushed to the hospital? Stay and enjoy the movie (without knowing it, or the enjoy part is over). You can't do jack there anyway except standing in the way of the docs trying to save him/her.
    • Blocking RF is easy if you don't need optical transparency - others have mentioned that many forms of insulation on the market already have metallized backing, for a theater one would just need a thin layer of metal foil in/on the walls. Paint with metallic particles or graphite powder mixed in would probably also work well.

      The big news here appears to be that it's an optically transparent solution, not even tinted. (It's a known fact that automotive window tints are pretty good at blocking RF due to meta

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
      Why.
      If movie theaters wanted to do it they could do it a lot cheaper. just coat the walls with hardware cloth or chicken wire and ground it. You could put wall board or even the sound damping cloth they already use over it. Cover the ceiling as well and ground the metal doors as well and your done. They could do it now with little effort. And yes it would work for EMP unless you had anything plugged in to a power line :)

  • old news (Score:5, Interesting)

    by weighn ( 578357 ) <weighn.gmail@com> on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @03:04AM (#19727501) Homepage
    I mean, I submitted this in an entirely different month:
    "Tinfoil hat" for your home blocks comms; Wednesday June 27, @01:06PM; Rejected

    If you want to keep up with news like this (recall that "news" comes from Middle English for "new thing") just drop New Scientist [pheedo.com] and Scientific American [sciam.com] into your RSS reader.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mcpkaaos ( 449561 )
      (recall that "news" comes from Middle English for "new thing")

      I've lived in the 21st century for too long. Now it just means "noise".

  • Hats? (Score:5, Funny)

    by WiseWeasel ( 92224 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @03:22AM (#19727581)
    Now if only they could make hats out of this stuff, to protect our brains from their mind control rays...

    • people aren't wearing enough (Score:5, Funny)

      by weighn ( 578357 ) <weighn.gmail@com> on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @07:24AM (#19728661) Homepage
      [Large corporate boardroom filled with suited executives]
      Exec #1: Item six on the agenda: "The Meaning of Life" Now uh, Harry, you've had some thoughts on this.
      Exec #2: Yeah, I've had a team working on this over the past few weeks, and what we've come up with can be reduced to two fundamental concepts. One: People aren't wearing enough hats. Two: Matter is energy. In the universe there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person's soul. However, this "soul" does not exist ab initio as orthodox Christianity teaches; it has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved owing to man's unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia.
      Exec #3: What was that about hats again?
      Exec #2: Oh, Uh... people aren't wearing enough.
      Exec #1: Is this true?
      Exec #4: Certainly. Hat sales have increased but not pari passu, as our research...
      Exec #3: [Interrupting] "Not wearing enough"? enough for what purpose?
      Exec #5: Can I just ask, with reference to your second point, when you say souls don't develop because people become distracted...
      [looking out window]
      Exec #5: Has anyone noticed that building there before?
  • If signals can't get out, they can't get in either so no using your cell phone inside or taking the cordless landline into the back yard. As for AM and FM radio, well who listens to that at home? (Well, me, since low bitrate music streams suck...)

    Anyways, you need to shield your walls and doors for this window film to be effective. Or you could just use grounded window screens instead... Somehow, I doubt anyone is Van Eck Phreaking your home at the moment
    • If signals can't get out, they can't get in either so no using your cell phone inside

      The previous owners of our new house must've had an in with the DoD - I think our windows, walls, foundation and fences are coated with this stuff already. Really, it's the weirdest thing: cell phone reception is nonexistent upstairs, extremely poor downstairs, fair-to-middlin' in the yard, and excellent the moment you step across the property line.

  • Just what we al needed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @03:22AM (#19727587)
    A way to make cell phone signals even *worse* indoors.

    No Thanks!

    Don't mind a bit if movie theaters heap several layers on the ceiling, walls, and seats though. I'll help put 'em up.

  • I read the subject as... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Aranykai ( 1053846 ) <slgonser.gmail@com> on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @03:23AM (#19727591)
    "Newly Declassified Windows Film [...]"

    I was like... 'wtf would Microsoft have done that was classified?' I still think it would have been more interesting that way.

    This is non-news. Just some crap that will be bought by the paranoid. Whats next? Roofing underlayment that blocks free radicals?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gmuslera ( 3436 )
      I did the same reading... then remembered that Hollywood likes a lot doing movies where building burns, ship sinks, planes crashes, and wondered what had of original a Windows film.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Himring ( 646324 )
      Roofing underlayment that blocks free radicals

      Omg! I need that! Where can I get?!?

    • "Newly Declassified Windows Film" I was like... 'wtf would Microsoft have done that was classified?'

      I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you... with a chair.

  • ...open the front door.

  • At last... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @03:44AM (#19727671)
    A version of Windows that can keep things out!

  • A few months back.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Enderandrew ( 866215 ) <enderandrew&gmail,com> on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @04:14AM (#19727779) Homepage Journal
    A few months back a friend introduced me to this. He isn't big into technology. He runs a window tinting company and wanted to know how legit this was, so we got some samples and tested it. I'm going to have to send him the link. This could be really big money for him, as he is getting in on the ground floor.

    It appears to work exactly as promised, and honestly, in certain applications it is the only real way to secure wireless data.

    The government declassifies technology all the time, usually after they've developed something better.
    • how exactly did you test it?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Enderandrew ( 866215 )
        Some simple, real basic cheap tests. He had various samples of the film.

        Place it directly over a cell phone, and the signal disappears, for instance. Place it directly between a wireless router, and your wireless card, and you cease to get a signal.

        He insisted he had seen proper rooms done up with the material when he met with the manufacturer, and you could maintain a network inside a building without signal loss, but it would block the signal from getting out.

        We had worked together at a casino where the

  • Windows Tag? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by calciphus ( 968890 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @04:28AM (#19727835)
    I know everyone loves to bash Microsoft on /. - but lets be fair, this really shouldn't be tagged with the "Windows" tag.

    Ever wonder why there's a "Linux" and an "Apple" section, but no "Microsoft" or even cleverly abbreviated "M$"?

    There's your tinfoil conspiracy.

    And tinfoil isn't made from tin. Stop calling it that.

    • Re:Windows Tag? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @05:02AM (#19727975)

      And tinfoil isn't made from tin. Stop calling it that.
      Baby powder isn't made from babies either.
    • I know everyone loves to bash Microsoft on /. - but lets be fair, this really shouldn't be tagged with the "Windows" tag.

      Ever wonder why there's a "Linux" and an "Apple" section, but no "Microsoft" or even cleverly abbreviated "M$"?

      I agree; my first thought was, "a film about Windows? Declassified? Some super-secret NT background study? What the...????". So yes, poorly tagged.

      However, there is a Microsoft topic; it's the one with the puerile Bill Gates as Borg icon. Some people never grow up. Nor does Slash
    • They only have Linux and Apple sections because they are rarer than Windows, and thus more interesting. If Linux or Apple ever gets 90% market share the need for special sections for them will disappear.
  • Look, if it's all the same to other /. readers,
    I'd be happy to find some affordable ( = cheap)
    spray to apply to my car windows, to help keep
    a bit of rain from making driving hazardous.

    Anybody got some good ol' home remedies to that
    problem, by any chance, thanks? :-/
    • Rain-X makes a spray that does this, but they also make a windshield washing fluid with Rain-X mixed in.

      It works very well. Rain-X typically only lasts a few rains, in my experience. And I don't carry a bottle in my pocket to spray when it looks cloudy.

      It may be easier or harder to find the fluid depending on where you live. I moved to Southern California 4 years ago, and I can count the rainstorms I've driven in on one hand. As such, I've never even seen the stuff (the spray or the fluid) in stores here.
  • So they've finally invented transparent aluminum?

  • EMP? You mean electromagnetic pulse? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cheesey ( 70139 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @05:08AM (#19728007)
    It can keep signals...out,...even the fabled electronics-destroying electromagnetic pulse generated by a nuclear blast.

    Now that's serious product testing.
  • Just wondering, this has nothing to do with MS Windows, right ? I was just confused while reading the begining of the article, wondering what a "windows film" could be...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by RuBLed ( 995686 )
      ...

      [spoilers start here]

      [eula is scrolling in the screen]

      Intro:

      Imagine a spacious office with paintings on the wall. You could feel the soft carpet through your shoes. You see several rows of finely crafted wooden chairs on the side. You see Balmer sitting on his desk looking furio.....

      [spoilers end here]

  • Booom! (Score:4, Funny)

    by minus9 ( 106327 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @07:12AM (#19728569) Homepage
    "It can keep signals in (preventing attempts to spy on electronic communications) or out, minimizing radio interference and even the fabled electronics-destroying electromagnetic pulse generated by a nuclear blast."

    I'm sure being able to view mutant porn after nuclear devastation hits will be a great comfort. Well done to all involved.

  • Finally! (Score:5, Funny)

    by DoofusOfDeath ( 636671 ) on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @07:38AM (#19728753)
    I'd give a lot to see that smug "Can you hear me now?" guy walk into one of those buildings.
  • It's not just for windows, yes? Wouldn't you also have to wrap the whole house a-la making your home a Faraday Cage? Film is cheaper than a quarter-wave mesh I'll give them that. 'Course blocking your own cell phone from your own home is a tad over the top.
  • I automatically assumed from the title that it's some conspiracy to do with Microsoft and MPAA. Wrong on both accounts.

  • But I want to know when they will invent a window covering that blocks out visible light. I wonder if they have a classified solution. :)
  • If an EMP generated by a nuke happened, wouldn't it just propagate along the power grid and still fry anything plugged in inside of the house?

  • Not a bad thing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ajs318 ( 655362 ) <sd_resp2@earthsh ... .co.uk minus bsd> on Tuesday July 03, 2007 @10:17AM (#19730205)
    I've been saying for a long time that what the world needs is a simple passive defence against mobile phones. Putting up signs only pisses off people who weren't going to be using a mobile anyway, and there are enough people who ignore them to make them ineffective.

    A faraday shield is unintrusive (if implemented properly) and can't be ignored. Nobody thinks their rights are being violated when they can't get a signal ..... but they also can't annoy people with a phone if it simply doesn't work.

Slashdot Top Deals

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Close