[Cryptography] Regulations of Tempest protections of buildings

mok-kong shen mok-kong.shen at t-online.de
Fri Apr 7 03:06:09 EDT 2017


Am 07.04.2017 um 00:30 schrieb Bill Frantz:
> On 4/6/17 at 1:01 PM, mok-kong.shen at t-online.de (mok-kong shen) wrote:
>
>> I suppose the law intends to cover such cases: If an arbitrary person 
>> A enters a certain
>> building B owned by a certain company C, e.g. A is a customer of C, 
>> then it should be
>> sufficiently guaranteed that A be able to get the warnings etc. I 
>> mentioned above  from
>> the official broadcasting  stations, if he cares to carry with him an 
>> appropriate receiver
>> (if he doesn't do so, then that's his own fault, as you wrote, in 
>> case a catastrophe happens
>> to him). Therefore B shouldn't be a Faraday cage according to the law.
>
> Lets get real here. A specific example:
>
> A reasonable receiver to use to get these warnings is a cell phone. 
> Our county allows you to sign up to get the warnings by cell phone, 
> which I have done. Stanford University has a class, EE380, which I 
> attend occasionally. It is held in the basement of the Gates Computer 
> Science building, and there is no cell phone reception there. Is the 
> assertion that Stanford is violating the law because it built a 
> building from concrete and rebar? Give me a break.
>
How did you suppose that a normal basement room is a specially 
(intentionally) built Faraday
insulated room and hence your point is relevent to the present context? 
Even without any human
intervention, in a deep natural tunnel, radio reception is known to be 
impossible. Are you claiming
that the law is therefore (since it fails to save human life in 
emergency cases where the people
should be warned) senseless or what?

M. K. Shen



More information about the cryptography mailing list