Hahahaha... OK, check this out. I just saw an advert for a "Notebook 
privacy filter":

- Fits 1.54" widescreen notebook computers.

- Keeps information confidential even in high traffic areas.

- Only persons directly in front of the monitor can see the image on screen.

...in other words, it reduces the viewing angle. (You know, the thing 
Notebook manufacturers have just spend the last 20 years trying to 
increase.) WTF?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> ...in other words, it reduces the viewing angle. (You know, the thing 
> Notebook manufacturers have just spend the last 20 years trying to 
> increase.) WTF?

Yeah, I hate how LCD screens appear so washed out when you're not 
sitting directly in front of them. Also, I learned recently that LCD 
screens are not immune to Van Eck Phreaking. I wonder if electronic 
paper is?

-Mike

Post a reply to this message

>> ...in other words, it reduces the viewing angle. (You know, the thing 
>> Notebook manufacturers have just spend the last 20 years trying to 
>> increase.) WTF?
> 
> Yeah, I hate how LCD screens appear so washed out when you're not 
> sitting directly in front of them.

Depends on the screen. My old laptop is hopeless; you can never get more 
than 20% of the screen visible at once. The other 80% comes out with all 
the colours inverted. But my new laptop is completely different. Even 
when viewed from quite a sharp angle, it's still at least readable, and 
certainly in normal use the colours are all fine.

...unless you fit this device. :-P

> Also, I learned recently that LCD 
> screens are not immune to Van Eck Phreaking. I wonder if electronic 
> paper is?

I think you'll find it's the display cable rather than the display 
itself which it putting out detectable radio waves.

If it makes you feel any better, the human brain leaks both electrical 
and magnetic signals which are detectable too. As do all your muscles, 
by the way. That's one of the main ways sharks hunt - by sensing 
electronic nerve pulses.

But you knew that already... ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible schrieb:
> Hahahaha... OK, check this out. I just saw an advert for a "Notebook 
> privacy filter":
> 
> - Fits 1.54" widescreen notebook computers.

That's not /particularly/ "widescreen" I'd say :-P

Post a reply to this message

SharkD schrieb:
> Yeah, I hate how LCD screens appear so washed out when you're not 
> sitting directly in front of them. Also, I learned recently that LCD 
> screens are not immune to Van Eck Phreaking. I wonder if electronic 
> paper is?

Starting with LCDs, it's not so much a question of display, but rather 
of data transmission between computer and display. It's the tradition of 
transmitting the whole image N times per second that leaves LC displays 
still prone to such types of attacks.


With e-paper, it would appear prudent to transmit only changes in the 
image buffer (so that an eavesdropper couldn't afford to miss a single 
bit), but it is yet to be seen whether this will happen. After all, even 
with contemporary displays it would appear to me much more efficient to 
transmit only the delta of information, at least for everyday office use.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> SharkD schrieb:
>> Yeah, I hate how LCD screens appear so washed out when you're not 
>> sitting directly in front of them. Also, I learned recently that LCD 
>> screens are not immune to Van Eck Phreaking. I wonder if electronic 
>> paper is?
> 
> Starting with LCDs, it's not so much a question of display, but rather 
> of data transmission between computer and display. It's the tradition of 
> transmitting the whole image N times per second that leaves LC displays 
> still prone to such types of attacks.
> 
> 
> With e-paper, it would appear prudent to transmit only changes in the 
> image buffer (so that an eavesdropper couldn't afford to miss a single 
> bit), but it is yet to be seen whether this will happen. After all, even 
> with contemporary displays it would appear to me much more efficient to 
> transmit only the delta of information, at least for everyday office use.

Why not just transmit the data encrypted?

Oh, wait...

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

>> - Fits 1.54" widescreen notebook computers.
> 
> That's not /particularly/ "widescreen" I'd say :-P

It might be. The aspect ratio isn't specified. Though, I'd have to say 
if it fits a 1.54" screen, the applications for this privacy shield are 
rather... limited.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:16:29 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Invisible schrieb:
>> Hahahaha... OK, check this out. I just saw an advert for a "Notebook
>> privacy filter":
>> 
>> - Fits 1.54" widescreen notebook computers.
> 
> That's not /particularly/ "widescreen" I'd say :-P

That was my thought. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 23-9-2009 16:59, Mike Raiford wrote:
> clipka wrote:
> 
>>> - Fits 1.54" widescreen notebook computers.
>>
>> That's not /particularly/ "widescreen" I'd say :-P
> 
> It might be. The aspect ratio isn't specified. Though, I'd have to say 
> if it fits a 1.54" screen, the applications for this privacy shield are 
> rather... limited.
> 
That is about the size of a watch. So perhaps we are talking about 
goggles. Which are indeed only viewable for one person. So, what was the 
point?

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> wrote:
> clipka wrote:

> >> - Fits 1.54" widescreen notebook computers.
> > 
> > That's not /particularly/ "widescreen" I'd say :-P

> It might be. The aspect ratio isn't specified.

  I think he referred to the absolute measurement rather than a relative
one. A very small screen cannot be considered very "wide", compared to
larger screens.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message