Re: video as a source of public randomness

[pcw@access.digex.net (Peter Wayner)]

At 12:08 PM 11/3/95, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

>Timothy C. May writes:
>> I  don't plan to belabor this point. Radioactive decay sources are
>> certainly fine, though not likely to be purchased by most people.
>
>Video digitzation equipment connected to TV tuners turned to dead air,
>your suggestion, are equally unlikely to be purchased by most
>people. The geiger counters are very simple and cheap, too.
>
>Perry

Well, it's true that video digitization equiptment _used_ to be unlikely to
be purchased.
Now, it is often standard equiptment. I recently purchased a Mac Performa
for a Customer
Support desk. We chose a cheaper model that came with a built-in video
tuner. It came
with a _remote control_ that would allow you to switch channels and adjust
the volume
just like a regular remote. It was very nicely integrated and ready to suck
down signal
from an antenna.

While I haven't hacked that part of the Mac kernal, I would not be
surprised if it was easy
to turn the signal into a Quicktime video file ready for hashing.

This was, incidentally, one of the cheaper Performas available at the time.
Your mileage
may vary because Apple is really flipping all over the place on features.
But, now that the cold
war is over, I don't expect them to be offering the Radiation Manager
plug-in any time soon.

-Peter