One of Neal Stephenson's (pseudo)historical characters remarks in
Quicksilver (which you should read) that the things made by man may appear beautiful to the unaided eye, but are imperfect and crude when seen up close, while the creations of nature appear ever more perfect when viewed at greater and greater magnification. Mankind has certainly made advances in changing this over the past century, but it will be only in this new century and perhaps even later that our creations shall start to become anywhere as precise and refined on a microscopic scale as those of nature.
For all that nanotechnology is a hot topic of conversation today, it is a discipline in its infancy. We still approach most problems we encounter, even in cutting-edge science and engineering, with a "sledgehammer solution" more often than not, expending far more energy and making far more noise than necessary. Any scientists among our great-great-grandchildren will find our technological ways as quaint and amusing as theater-goers, today, might find the theatrical conventions of ancient Rome. (For in Rome, the crowds of spectators were vast, so every gesture was exaggerated and many a word shouted so that its meaning might penetrate).
The analogy is quite relevant to the topic of this post. For modern electronics, sleek and silent to the naked eye though they might be, carry on as they operate their own ancient Roman song-and-dance in the electronic realm. Even in comparatively 'secure' applications, we really haven't learned to stop the signal yet (yeah, I'm repeating myself; to the uninitiated: watch Firefly). Every time we write a letter using a keyboard or make a mouse-click to open an application, we set off a veritable storm in the electro-magnetic field, which propagates at the speed of light beyond the boxes of our computers and the walls of our dwellings to reach the outside world. You might be scared to learn how much information this storm carries along with it.
I wrote earlier that I was doing some coding for a custom lock-in amplifier for the Company. Well, I'm done with that - the code runs beautifully, and the amplifier is functioning beyond specifications (to be fair, my contribution to this was minor). Seeing it in action reminded me of my junior physics lab in college 8 years ago, which is when I built my very own lock-in for the first time. It was crude, to be sure, but it could pick out the faintly flashing light from a diode from all the way across the lab, where I couldn't make it out with the naked eye. This with electronics running all around, fluorescent lights and sunlight flooding the room and all kinds of other background noise in the air. A good comparison would be being able to hear the sound of a faucet dripping against the background noise of a waterfall.
My point is not that genius me made a fancy spy device as an undergraduate, but exactly the opposite: that even a simple circuit, with a couple of cheap elements thrown together according to a diagram downloaded from the net, permitted me to do this. Let your imagination guide you as to what a team of highly experienced engineers with a large budget can build. Reconstructing the image on your computer screen as you, say, enter the number of your credit card - or describe the security setup at the White House - are not at all outside the realm of possibility. In fact, this kind of remote viewing, called by some Van Eck Phreaking (which Neal Stephenson also wrote about, this time in
Cryptonomicon - further evidence of a great writer), has been demonstrated to work, even if its limitations are not widely known.
But do not panic just yet. The White House and other sensitive operations do take standardized precautions (look up TEMPEST on Wikipedia) to avoid all but the most advanced techniques, and as for your credit cards - well, the effort and knowledge required for such surveillance is sufficient that credit card fraud is unlikely to make it worthwhile. For, you see, to decypher the noise generated by technology of one level of refinement, you need something designed at the next level. With time, of course, such technology could become a viable mass-market product - but, as this starts happens, our computers and TVs will also transition to the next level of quality. To spy on those will once again be beyond the consumer's ability.
Perhaps in time our devices will run on the minimum energy physically required and cancel their own noise near-perfectly. In the meantime, you should feel just a little less secure in your privacy as you sit in your basement, typing up your world-domination plans on your non-networked computer. For, however fine your precautions, the signal
always gets through.
(For the technically minded - yes, I know, the transition from a lock-in amplifier, which literally
locks in to anything characterized by the reference signal, to a Van Eck Phreaker is non-trivial. I used the lock-in as an illustrative device.)