SergiusPaulus
Senior Member
Does anyone know if they do or is the TTY operator just stupid sometimes. 
-
WhiteBlack Hats using TTY?
- Thread starter SergiusPaulus
- Start date
SergiusPaulus
Senior Member
RTT is replacing TTY. So it’s currently more vulnerable until proper security is developed.
While Real-Time Text (RTT) offers a more interactive, real-time communication experience, its security is a concern, as with any technology that transmits data over networks. In theory, any system transmitting text, including RTT, could be vulnerable to hacking or manipulation by outside sources. However, the actual risk depends on several factors such as the network security measures in place and the specific implementation of RTT.
### Potential Security Risks:
1. Network Vulnerabilities: If RTT is transmitted over unsecured networks or lacks proper encryption, malicious actors could intercept the data in transit and modify the messages, similar to hacking other types of text-based communication like chat services.
2. Lack of Authentication: RTT relies on real-time transmission, and if the system doesn't properly authenticate the sender or the recipient, it could allow unauthorized users to insert or modify messages. This could lead to spoofing or misinformation being transmitted.
3. Man-in-the-Middle Attacks: Without encryption, RTT could be susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks, where attackers intercept and alter the communication between two parties without them knowingventative Measures:
1. End-to-End Encryption: To safeguard RTT transmissions, encryption should be implemented, ensuring that only the intended recipients can read the messages. This prevents third-party interference and hacking.
2. Secure Authentication and Access Control: Systems using RTT must ensure that both senders and recipients are authenticated, and proper access controls are in place to prevent unauthorized users from tampering with the data.
3. Monitoring and Auditing: Continuous monitoring and auditing of RTT systems can help detect any irregularities or unauthorized access attempts, making it easier to prevent hacking.
### Conclusion:
While RTT is not inherently more vulnerable to hacking than other real-time communication technologies, its security largely depends on the infrastructure and measures taken to protect it. If implemented with strong encryption and authentication protocols, RTT can be a secure means of communication. However, as with any system, weak links in security could potentially expose it to hacking.Teletype is reserved for deaf people to make calls. Phone phreakers know it exists, but it isn't very interesting. As far as what's mentioned for text chat, all that technology has been around for over a decade (some pieces quite a bit longer). Simpler and plain protocols (like IRC) often have plugins for the clients to add in band encryption.
SergiusPaulus
Senior Member
Ah. The Closed Captioning for news broadcasts seems garbled often. Is it generated autonomously by software or people trying to type as fast as talkers? I’ve seen situations where the TV is on mute and the content of closed captioning has nothing to do with what’s on the screen. I was curious if others had seen that. I guess I got TTY confused with CC. Are things like live major sporting events CC’d? If so can the CC pass messages to viewers unexpectedly like a whistleblower might do?Yeah, I've seen garbling, too. In the old analog format, you could actually see the in band CC data bouncing around at the very top of the screen. With digital TV, that became a text stream inside the channel.
In both formats, if the radio transmission wasn't strong enough or got hit by interference, the CC text will barf. In digital TV, if the audio is going in or out or the video is periodically blocking, it's likely that the CC text will be fully garbled.
In the US, it is law for any broadcast TV to include a CC stream for the deaf. I don't know if dedicated cable stations are required since they don't fall under broadcast law, but it is encouraged for them to include CC, and most do.
Live news broadcasts and sporting events have a person typing out what is said. This could be on a regular keyboard, but I've heard they tend to use a special phonetic type setup and a computer translates that into standard English in real time (similar to a legal courtroom setup). This allows words to be typed much faster than a regular keyboard. Sometimes the computer doesn't understand and will garble a word or two. Sometimes the person mis-types something and that can be garbled.
With technology improving, speech to text can be an alternative if the computer is fast enough. If people slur their words or run two words together fast enough, the computer will get confused and garble the text. (This often happens on slower smart phones.) As AI gets better and more prominent, a computer can conceptually follow what is being said. If a word gets garbled, it could try and figure out what that word should be based on a complex spell check and sentence analysis. Sometimes that works, sometimes not. Most live news is read off a teleprompter, so in the future an AI might have access to that script for reference and use it for auto correcting garbled words at the source. Most everything in a sporting event is off the cuff, so a teleprompter couldn't be used to augment an AI's STT.
I don't think I've seen that, but sometimes the person typing gets way behind. That person could be typing the previous news story when the reporters have already moved on to the next. If it's totally off, the wrong CC stream may have been selected for the program.
CC isn't subliminal, so it won't pass messages to viewers.
Advertisements might still use subliminal messages, but this is discouraged by the industry... but who knows if they actually follow it or not. Subliminal messages can be whispers in the audio, faint images on the screen, or selective positive and negative images on the screen. This last one is almost always used and is part of the advertising culture. The first two could be used by government agencies to control the population if they have access to the TV control room.
Whistlebowers rarely have access to a TV control room to send a message. Most people don't watch TV with CC on, so that's not a very good way of trying to send a message out to the mass population. The people in the TV control room would also wonder what they're doing and try to stop them. If it's broadcast TV in the US, the FCC might fine a station for literally going "off script" that badly.
I've seen some documentaries about the spy world. In WW2, public radio messages would often contain certain keywords that could be referenced to a codebook. These would often be spoken during news and weather. Messages could be passed that way. Some spy agencies set up a dedicated radio station for their agents to listen in on. Without the code book to translate, it sounds like nonsense.
Using CC to pass messages to agents in the field by modifying existing text streams in pre-recorded TV shows and movies isn't recommended. The counter-agencies also have access to these streams and will know somthing is up if a CC stream suddenly changes. It's better to stick to live events where the script isn't known in this case (like the WW2 example).
SergiusPaulus
Senior Member
A little off topic but regarding the viewing screen still I wonder how the elements of the viewable space will evolve via new technology. In 2001 USA Networks cable channel bought 51% of our software company to obtain proprietary technology. They wanted to use it convert TV programs into shoppable environments. Most tv programs are supplied with products from companies they have agreements with. Like furniture for a recurring show so people may want to buy the product that is used on the weekly tv show. Like a popular sitcom or otherwise. That idea was ahead of its time and I still haven’t seen it. Imagine an interactive tv program with metadata and a remote control device allowing you to purchase while you watch. QVC on steroids I guess.
Farang
Member
Interesting post, thank you.
Here's the first ever example of this embedded marketing.
Product placement - Wikipedia.
I know they've been wanting to do that with broadcast TV. It's some kind of interactive targeted advertising within the TV program. There's been a lot of pushback against it, thankfully. Eventually they will win and our privacy will be violated even more.