This jammer wants to block AI-powered wearables that are always listening. Maybe it won’t work

Deveillance also claims that the Specter can find nearby microphones through radio frequency (RF) detection, but critics say that finding a microphone via RF emissions is not effective unless the sensor is right next to it.

“If you could detect and identify components via RF the way Specter claims, it would literally transform the technology,” Jordan wrote in a text message to WIRED after he built a device to test the detection of RF signatures in microphones. “You’ll be able to do radio astronomy in Manhattan.”

Deveillance is also looking at ways to incorporate nonlinear junction detection (NLJD), a very high-frequency radio signal used by security professionals to find hidden microphones and bugs. NLJD detectors are expensive and are mainly used in professional contexts such as military operations.

Even if the device can detect the exact location of the microphone, objects around the room can change how the frequencies propagate and interact. Emitted frequencies can also be a problem. There have not been enough studies to show the effects of ultrasound frequencies on the human ear, but some people and many pets can hear them and find them unpleasant or even painful. Baradari admits that her team needs to conduct more tests to find out how pets are affected.

“They simply can’t do it,” engineer and YouTuber Dave Jones (who runs the EEVblog channel) wrote in an email to WIRED. “They use the classic trick of using words to indicate that it will detect all kinds of microphones, when all they’re probably doing is looking for Bluetooth audio devices. It’s completely lame.” Bardari reiterates that Specter uses a combination of RF and Bluetooth Low Energy to detect microphones.

WIRED asked Baradari to share any evidence of Specter’s effectiveness in identifying and blocking microphones in a person’s vicinity. Baradari shared some short videos of people holding their phones to their ears and listening to audio clips — which the Specter supposedly scrambled — but those videos don’t do much to prove that the device works.

The future is imperfect

Al-Baradari took the criticism in stride, acknowledging that the technology is still under development. “I actually appreciate these comments, because it makes me think and see more things, too,” Baradari says. “I believe that with the ideas we have and combining them into one device, these concerns can be addressed.”

People were quick to mock the Specter I online, calling the technology a cone of silence Sand dunes. Now, Deveillance says, “Our goal is to make the Cone of Silence a reality.”

John Scott-Railton, a cybersecurity researcher at Citizen Lab who has been critical of the Specter I, praised the device’s spread as an indication of a real desire to use these kinds of tools to reclaim our privacy.

“The bright side of this explosion is that it’s an episode-like moment that highlights how quickly and intensely consumer attitudes around ubiquitous recording devices are shifting,” says Scott-Railton. “We need to build products that do all the great things people want, but don’t involve massive invasions of privacy and consent. You need device-level controls, and you need regulations for companies that do that.”

Cooper Quentin, a senior technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, echoed these sentiments, even if critics believe Devilance’s efforts are flawed.

“If this technology works, it could be a blessing for many,” Quentin wrote in an email to WIRED. “It’s nice to see a company inventing something to protect privacy rather than working on new and innovative ways to extract data from us.”