The IoT War vs. Every Other Topic

[Josh SternModerator]

Most essays here I write in one short burst of thought. The note above is one I started thinking about 2 days ago. Thinking about it, I got hung up on the general Q of how GT should try to centrally coordinate some activities rather than relying on just the favor system. When? Well, especially when efficiency & politics & strategy call for central coordination. But when that is is a matter of debate. So let’s say that the IoT war is an important area where GT needs to start doing that. See what goes right & wrong with that as a model for other topics like public relations, recruiting, and other defense topics.

[Josh SternModerator]

The area is very wide.

Try to encourage cataloguing of reports describing notable successes and failures with details about the techniques the that were used.

Try to gain additional funding & problems by encouraging private solution requests for particular feats.

One of the most impressive, gifted to me, was a demo of soapy perfume fragrance triggered for me as I walked under the main electrical wires that go between my home utility mast & the telephone pole. Apparently it can be used, on cue, to create an EMF that precisely triggers olfaction. Who knew? (Trump)

[Josh SternModerator]

I rapped some about roofs, for buildings, tents, or cars.

Key analysis points –

There are different, worthy objectives, with different levels of difficulty and cost to be realized in various situations:

a) Implement detection/description sensors & software that allow inhabitants to get a comprehensive reporting and alerts about exactly what, where, and when are IoT signals being sent towards satellite from within their enclosure. For network computer users, this would complement reports about what is being sent by Internet, WiFi, Bluetooth (with 3rd party sideways receiver) channels.

b) Supplement and “edit” the satellite signals to control the overall impression and ability of satellite to spy on what’s inside the structure. This can include IoT spam.

c) Block internal signals – most expensive in some cases. Care must be taken with e.g. metal roofs to avoid adding EMF attack abilities – e.g. passive grounding is not enough when root attacks easily poison the ground.

[Josh SternModerator]

Much of the traditional Deep State IoT has apparently been based around undocumented interfaces that implement signals in digital more code, at particular low AM frequencies. This is true for the EE kill tech found in residential settings. Morse code signals can describe the type of targets or non-targets present in an environment and draw charge energy towards or away from a given signal. I haven’t heard whether or not IoT sabotage in Autos is also implemented using Morse Code AM, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

Ed – I would check for use of very low frequency AM carrier bands – perhaps something like 60Hz in the USA and 50Hz in Europe.

Sensing the presence or absence of metallic traces, especially Titanium for TI, also has a significant effect.

The space of all possible IoT related EMF signals is vast, but looking for & mimicing the most common signals and sensor patterns is tractable. Many stores have now started to sell passive IoT “Morse Code Bracelets” without explaining the IoT context. I can verify that this one called “To My Grandson – I Love You” is a helpful charm for non I geared person in EE kill.

[Josh SternModerator]

My info says that for many decades now, bulk materials found around construction and landscaping are designed to wirelessly and chemically forward positive charge towards sites that call for it in IoT code (Morse, etc) – or equivalently, they subtract negative charge from that direction. In effect, these bulk materials act as IoT batteries for misc operations. A consequence of that is that GT defense and home econ should focus on trying to generically extract that extra battery energy to sources we design with a constructive use for it, gaining both the free power and the defensive operation of denying to other uses.

[Josh SternModerator]

Looking for backdoors on digital devices, we can conceive of Memtest style testing in which a battery of known, wireless IoT signal pattern types are directed as a digital device going through a testsuite to look for any observable digital or timing effects.

[Josh SternModerator]

Consider the intersection of these two strategic goals:

I – Teaching engineers about hidden IoT and nanotech so they can use the knowledge in their own constructive pro-consumer designs and defenses.

II – Developing our own product like Matlab that plays the role in engineering teaching that Matlab is currently used for. Why? What’s wrong with Matlab? The limitations of Matlab a) too expensive for HS students, b) not an open platform, c) awkward for scaling to different architectures, d) not the most modern programming style. But it’s strength is doing interesting things in most areas of public engineering curriculum and basic industry design.

So, strategically, starting with I headed for II as a strategy makes sense to me.

Providing really good docs for education should be a priority and not an afterthought.

[Author]

Posts