When I was a lot younger and video beta came out there was an article in an electronics magazine on how to pick up the impulses used for synchronisizing the horizontal and vertical deflection on the B&W TV and the intensity.
It was great fun to eavesdrop on neighbours to see if they were watching some x-rated movie (which was why a number of people were early adopters of video tape). (some hilarious things happened during this time too - there was a couple in Rome who decided to tape themselves....When the next day they came out of their appertments some neighbours giggled: there had been an error with the installation with the result that it was broadcast through the local cable system. They moved from the area in a hurry)
Some people were convicted of eavesdropping / wiretapping (which is illegal), others were not. The whole difference was that those who were convicted were using a directional antenna, those who were not convicted were not using a directional antenna. The reason behind this was that if you walk down the street and you find money then you are not stealing, yet when you bump into someone and make them drop their wallet (on purpose) and then pick it up, then you are.
Ofcourse without a directional antenna you got so much interference that a clear signal was almost an impossibility
I have not kept up with this technology but I do know that the military at least at one stage were using a faraday shield around their terminals / computers. Same as embassies around the world: their "communication room" has a faraday shield around it.
So it is not as off-beat as many may think.
I have been involved in other areas of security and it is defintely something I am taking into account. Hence I have spend about 5 years on designing a discretionary system which is very hard to reverse engineer and which jumps timeframes all the time and uses a multitude of entries / exits. My rating of this system is that it is pretty difficult to "brute force" the strategy.
In addition I play games with a number of brokers so that not a single broker gets a clear insight into my trading. (Lessons learned from Livermore)
When you have been using a simulator at a broker then by the time you arrive at your profitable system most of the damage has already been done . (you start off with one system, one timeframe and then start adding on to it so there comes a track record. Often the first systems are relatively simple which are easy to "brute force" and then they are able to "tag along").
With a professional background in detecting patterns using artificial intelligence I consider that it is possible to "brute force" 98% of the strategies out there. (particularly when I read in recent days about a poster claiming to have run a million or so backtests in the past few years and that he knows of others using 5000 CPU's to run backtests. Don't know if to believe or not but it is certainly within the possibilities)
But like in any equlibrium: the more the strategies get the same the easier it will be to make money when you have something that falls outside the "main stream". However in order to get to the latter you have to think outside the normal stuff and one thing I perceive is that the younger generations seems to be less and less able to think for themselves.
(This is further supported by studies that have not shown a dramatic increase in the succesrate of traders in spite of better education and better access to technology)
The downside of the equilibrium is that once it gets disturbed then mayhem will follow.
Which brings me to the collapse of the volatility starting with the Iraq war. Now volatility is increasing and some who have been making good money in past few years may find that the going is increasingly becoming tougher. I for one had intitially issues with the "spoofers" (or "flippers") but these days I take advantage of them and they are a great help getting out of a position (and letting them hold the bucket, thank you).
Holmes