Slashdot Mirror


War Driving Version 2.0

asv108 writes: "There is an interesting article in the New York Times about the popularity of wireless cameras from X10 and how easy it is to easedrop on the feeds with relatively inexpensive equipment from up to a 1/4 mile away." I wonder if they're doing the things the X10 ads imply they might be doing.

114 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. X10's ad campaign by sammy.lost-angel.com · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wasn't this the point of all those annoying X10 ads? :)

    1. Re:X10's ad campaign by Elbereth · · Score: 2
  2. whos idea was it? by cliche · · Score: 1

    i think that if it wasnt for the ads, the idea of eavesdroping with the x10s might not be so prevelent. imho

  3. Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't you just love how uninformed the general population is?

    After X10 spends all this money selling such an easy to use product, some dumb ass journalist stumbles accross the fact that

    [GASP] These things are really easy to use!!!

    And they work so well, they are really easy to use!!! by anyone!!!

    OH MY GHOD!!! It's one channel garage door openers all over again!!

    1. Re:Sigh... by jswatz · · Score: 1

      Hi, it's me, the "dumb-ass journalist." Since most consumers don't know that a radio is, you know, a radio, I thought it was worth pointing out to them. Was the story a call for protective legislation? I don't remember writing that in. Did it say that this is an issue unique to XCams? nah. Ultimately, it was a story that said "think about the technology you use." I can see how that would irritate anyone who already does think about the technology he uses, but I thought it was fair warning for the rest of the world.

      --
      "speaking only for myself since 1957"
    2. Re:Sigh... by sulli · · Score: 2
      Did you expect it to be on the front page? To me the article was interesting (I didn't know you could wardrive XCams) but I wondered what all the claims about legislation or lack thereof were about. The article definitely had an "... and this is LEGAL!!" spin to it that implied such a discussion, even if it wasn't explicit.

      (posted across my 802.11 modem...)

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    3. Re:Sigh... by jswatz · · Score: 1

      I didn't expect it to be on the front, no. You can never bet on these things. I put in the legal stuff not to push for legislation (although Prof. Fishman clearly wants some); the real intention was to show, as my stories often do, how law develops as a patchwork and not as a planned or even logical process.

      --
      "speaking only for myself since 1957"
  4. Implications. by saintlupus · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder if they're doing the things the X10 ads imply they might be doing.

    Yeah, because hot chicks in skimpy outfits love guys with nothing better to do than fuck around with obscure protocols.

    That's one of the many reasons RMS gets all the ladies, right?

    --saint

  5. War driving my arse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I bet they'll suddenly be more car accidents, with bored students driving round trying to pick up 'dodgy' webcams

    They're again pr0n driving wouldn't have the same 'ring' to it (oops excuse the pun)

    1. Re:War driving my arse? by telstar · · Score: 4, Funny

      I guess that explains the 17 year old whose civic has been parked on my yard for the past month.

  6. dumb law, bad law by Alien54 · · Score: 2
    When told of the novel form of high-technology prying, Professor Fishman said, "That is astonishing and appalling." But he said that wiretap laws generally applied to intercepting sound, not video. Legal prohibitions on telephone eavesdropping, he said, were passed at the urging of the telecommunications industry, which wanted to ensure that consumers would feel safe using its products. "There's no corresponding lobby out there protecting people from digital surveillance," he said

    wonderful.

    and of course, no one is running to plug the legal hole.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:dumb law, bad law by OverCode@work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The notion that legislation banning certain electronic devices (800 MHz receivers) somehow protects people from eavesdropping is patently absurd.

      -John

    2. Re:dumb law, bad law by Elbereth · · Score: 2

      We don't need a new law for this. You already can't publish a picture of someone without their permission.

      If someone really wants to draft a new law simply for the X10 cameras, go for it. But it seems a little wasteful to me.

    3. Re:dumb law, bad law by dattaway · · Score: 5, Informative

      The one I got from X10 runs at 2.4GHz. These things are like visual CB's or walkietalkies.

      All you need is the receiver to pick up a very nice picture and the range is incredible. Its too easy to fashion a crumpled up piece of aluminum foil around the antenna to concentrate the signal for dramatic range increases across the city.

      Pass laws against receiving these? That's like banning the receive mode on CB radios. Its pretty much public airspace. Its an anarchy that people need to learn how to use if they want any privacy.

    4. Re:dumb law, bad law by ergo98 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      It's not a legal hole: It's a technical hole.

    5. Re:dumb law, bad law by p3d0 · · Score: 1

      That can't be right. What happened to the first amendment? (Are you posting from the US?)

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    6. Re:dumb law, bad law by fwr · · Score: 2

      You can publish all the pictures of someone all you want without their permission, as long as they are taken in a public place. Besides, with the X10 the people that are being taken "pictures" of are the ones doing the publishing, although possibly unknowingly. If anything at all the most restrictive law that should be passed is a simple disclosure on the X10 video packaging stating that it may be possible to pick up the video broadcast of these devices by other people and that they are inherently insecure...

    7. Re:dumb law, bad law by ethereal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep, that's some good common sense thinking, there. Which will last until some industry or the FCC gets worked up about it and makes it illegal - just like cell phone scanners. Unfortunately, the law doesn't have to square with common sense, and in some cases goes out of its way to avoid it :)

      The correct solution is technical - just use hard encryption for your signal, and you couldn't care less who's snooping on it. But I wouldn't complain too much if the actual solution just makes receivers illegal; at least such a law would ensure a wide variety of exciting video experiences for those willing to put together their own receivers...

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    8. Re:dumb law, bad law by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      The notion that legislation banning certain electronic devices (800 MHz receivers) somehow protects people from eavesdropping is patently absurd.

      Let's not bring patents into this!

  7. login id by chocolatetrumpet · · Score: 2, Informative

    l. slashdot12345
    p. slashdot12345

    in case you need it

    --
    Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
    1. Re:login id by ethereal · · Score: 1

      Time to mod back down - it doesn't work anymore.

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    2. Re:login id by Saeger · · Score: 2
      You know, I really wonder what's taking the NYTimes (and other "freereg" sites) so long to implement unique login enforcement? Porn sites have been using this kind of protection (such as PennyWize) for years to redflag accounts where multiple IP's per time period share the same account.

      Maybe they're not hurting enough yet?

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    3. Re:login id by quintessent · · Score: 2

      Based on how these things keep getting disabled, it seems obvious that one of these is true:

      1) NYTimes is reading Slashdot to find user names to disable.
      2) NYTimes looks for user names that get used beyond certain limits and disables them.

    4. Re:login id by Froze · · Score: 1

      teach him how to hit himself on the head with a fish and you will no end of entertainment.

      --
      -- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
    5. Re:login id by Yottabyte84 · · Score: 2

      #) trolls are changing the passes

    6. Re:login id by AlmightySpoon · · Score: 1

      How about setting up a caching proxy to the nytimes times. Or a few to spread the bandwidth.

      --
      --------------------------- Politics, Religion, and Sex... Which one do you practice most?
  8. The ads are the result! by MrMadnutz · · Score: 1

    The ads are actually made from images the company got by eavesdropping on their customers. Ha ha.

  9. no no no by nomadic · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder if they're doing the things the X10 ads imply they might be doing.

    You've got it all wrong; X10 is meant to protect and safeguard your family. All those half-dressed women in the ads are simply burglars, removing their bulky clothing so they can slither in through your window and steal your stuff.

  10. My favorite quote by usermilk · · Score: 5, Funny
    The nanny who decided to take off her dress and clean up the house in her underwear would probably have no recourse"

    If only it was true...

    1. Re:My favorite quote by artemis67 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The nanny who decided to take off her dress and clean up the house in her underwear would probably have no recourse"

      If only it was true...


      Hmmm, there's something about middle-aged, overweight Venezualan women that just doesn't do it for me....

    2. Re:My favorite quote by usermilk · · Score: 1
      Hmmm, there's something about middle-aged, overweight Venezualan women that just doesn't do it for me....

      It takes a real man to make those women happy.

    3. Re:My favorite quote by puckhead · · Score: 1

      She could use it on her resume'

      --
      Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
    4. Re:My favorite quote by mosch · · Score: 1

      overweight? you must be paying her too well! you need a younger girl, who will spend her few last dollars on a little MDMA, instead of a hoagie.

    5. Re:My favorite quote by sharkey · · Score: 2

      Hmmm, there's something about middle-aged, overweight Venezualan women that just doesn't do it for me

      Thank you! That got the image of Robin Williams in women's underwear, wearing the Mrs. Doubtfire wig and makeup right out of my head.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    6. Re:My favorite quote by kubrick · · Score: 2

      Hmmm, there's something about middle-aged, overweight Venezualan women that just doesn't do it for me....

      Come on, man! Live a little. :)

      Besides, this is Slashdot, right? Probably better than many here can hope for... ;)

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
  11. Just wondering... by rusty0101 · · Score: 1

    Was this discovered by people looking for 802.11b APs around the city, encountering interfearance and pulling out an X10 camera reciever?

    -Rusty

    --
    You never know...
  12. Re:I'm sorry, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    There used to be such a thing as war dialling: setting your modem to call many 800 numbers sequentially, looking for a modem response. Collect the numbers, hack around with em, yada yada yada....

    War driving version 1 is about 802.11 (wifi) - people drive around big cities and overhear the traffic broadcast by banks, and so on.

    this is v.2

    hope that's clear

  13. Re:I'm sorry, by rusty0101 · · Score: 2, Informative

    WarDialing - dialing a large number of phone numbers to see which numbers are to computers.

    WarDriving (v1) Driving through communities looking for open 802.11b AccessPoints.

    WarDriving (v2) like v1, but looking for X10 cameras.

    --
    You never know...
  14. For a good time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Call 1-800-564-8982

    Press 2, then 5228. Enjoy!

    I'm sure all /. editors should be very familiar with it...

    1. Re:For a good time... by Peridriga · · Score: 2

      Mod This up as funny... Call the phone number...

    2. Re:For a good time... by anonymous+loser · · Score: 2

      ROFL

      It's times like this when I wish I had mod points, but don't.

    3. Re:For a good time... by ahaning · · Score: 1

      Anyone wish to inform those of us too wimpy to try this what this is?

      Thanks.

      --
      Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
    4. Re:For a good time... by wadetemp · · Score: 3, Funny

      "... it will not cause hairy palms ..."

    5. Re:For a good time... by ChiPHeaD23 · · Score: 1

      Don't call this number! It's a blind redirect to goatse.cx!

    6. Re:For a good time... by usermilk · · Score: 1

      It explains what masturbation is.

    7. Re:For a good time... by wadetemp · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's a good question... after I get the pleasant female voice telling me a number is out of service, there's a bit of dead air, and then Frank the telephone lineman explains to me, in as bored a voice possible, "208... 342." *Click*

    8. Re:For a good time... by Pete+(big-pete) · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Damn!

      I just tried it, and the standard reply kept breaking up on me - I cannot beleive we've just slashdotted the auto-response for this telephone number! :)

      -- Pete.

    9. Re:For a good time... by dr_labrat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Soooo, for those of us not in the states, or too lazy to pick up a fone... WTF is it?

      --
      The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made. (Marx)
    10. Re:For a good time... by ahaning · · Score: 1

      This is the online equivalent.

      Or, to quote a response to my post to this thread, "it explains what masturbation is."

      --
      Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
    11. Re:For a good time... by Yottabyte84 · · Score: 2

      It's a SIT tone to tell computers they've reached a dead number. It's how that telezapper thing works.

  15. Re:I'm sorry, by OverDrive33 · · Score: 3, Informative

    War Driving is the term used from when people would (and still do) drive around with wireless networking equiptment and see how many places' networks they can see/play with along the way.
    The term comes from "War Dialing" which is pretty much no longer in practice. It was when phreakers would dial numbers in order until one picked up with a modem answer, kind of like brute force password cracking. Once a modem answered, most of the time people just tinkered with things to see what that particular phone number had in it.
    For more information on war dailing, see the movie "War Games" (this is a CLASSIC 'hacker' movie).

    I would assume that you do the same thing with X10 stuff, just hook it up to a laptop and drive around until you got a signal. Hence, war driving 2.0.

  16. Hmm by NiftyNews · · Score: 3, Funny

    It is really easy, but no matter how many I set up around my house I just can't seem to find any hot half-naked women lounging around for me to spy on.

    Maybe I just need to buy more cameras...

    1. Re:Hmm by Tim+Ward · · Score: 2

      You must live in the wrong house then :-)

  17. steal credit card numbers? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 3, Funny

    In the nearby town of Madison, from the parking lot of a Staples store, workers could be observed behind the cash register.

    I doubt it, but I wonder if the resolution was good enough to read the credit card numbers of the customers, when they put it on the counter.

  18. Re:Mind er spelling by Peyna · · Score: 2

    maybe they said 'easedrop' to imply how much 'ease' you could do it with? =] I doubt it. But you never know

    --
    What?
  19. Shit... by AnimeFreak · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought the ladies come with the cameras. I guess I will cancel my order for those 10 X10 cameras.

    I should have thought over how they would get 10 hot females shipped via courier.

    1. Re:Shit... by British · · Score: 2
  20. Anything on the airwaves... by antirename · · Score: 4, Informative

    that's not encrypted can be intercepted. Just like scanning for cordless phones, this is not really that hard. If you don't want someone to see/hear personal information you're transmitting, ENCRYPT it! Of course, most consumers either don't know enough about encryption to use it or just don't care. Then again, if you've ever gotten bored and scanned the wireless phone frequencies you know how inane and boring most conversations are. I'm betting the average "nanny-cam" would be just as boring :)

    1. Re:Anything on the airwaves... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Encryption over the airwaves is highly regulated.

      For instance, hams can't even obscure their signal, much less encrypt it. I'm not sure of the laws on consumer devices, but's it's probably limited to specifically, explicitely defined encryption protocols and then only within the true consumer frequencies. (902-928Mhz) and 2.4Ghz, and also a slice around 40Mhz for old phones and intercoms.

      Maybe someone with more definite knowledge can fill in my gaps.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Anything on the airwaves... by Nullsmack · · Score: 1

      You could argue about the validity of the encryption for WiFi.. but I wont go there.

      I am a licensed ham and it's true, we can't use encryption on licensed ham frequencies. I think there's a clause that basically says we can, but everyone has to be able to decode it. Rot13 would prolly be okay, but then there's not much point in encyrpting something if everyone can read it anyways! :)

      Either way, as long as you are allowed to transmit on a frequency, and you're not a ham and it's not a ham frequency.. then encryption is fine. There are a few exceptions though, data and encrypted signals on FRS radios are forbidden by the rules that created them. Then again, that hasn't stopped Garmin from introducing a combination gps/frs radio that you can use to tell other people with them where you're at. I don't know many people who would shell out $150 more or less per radio for that though.

      Anyways, even where you can encrypt.. if your equipment doesn't already come equiped for that, then it's very hard to get a complicated system set up. There are a few hobbyist audio inverter systems, but then that's the same as rot13 and anyone with that can decrypt it. All new cordless phones come with encryption now, I think they all work on spread-spectrum principles as well.

      (BTW, as an interesting aside related specifically to this article.. Icom released a communications receiver called the "Icom R3" it costs about $350 give or take. It has a little 2" color lcd screen on it, as well as being able to receive anything between 500khz (iirc) and 2.4ghz, except for the 800mhz cell band. It can receive any AM or FM tv transmission, from the broadcast tv to the wireless video senders and these camera's. This radio has been out for quite some months, though I couldn't tell you when it came out.)

  21. Ugh..Just what the world needs.. by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 4, Funny



    ...More grainy porn featuring ugly nerds humping their bovine "webmistresses"....Yeesh. At $1.39 a gallon, i've got better things to do with a tank of gas than to drive around looking for things I don't really want to see.

    Cheers,

    --
    Bowie J. Poag

  22. "Digital" eavesdropping? by Ophidian+P.+Jones · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "There's no corresponding lobby out there protecting people from digital surveillance," he said.

    Digital eavesdropping? The cameras send an analog signal just like a TV station does. Sheesh..

    1. Re:"Digital" eavesdropping? by QuodEratDemonstratum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      protecting people from digital surveillance

      And ... the people are surveiling themselves ... they made the decision to install the cameras in their house and broadcast the results to the world.

  23. Receiving Equipment by BingoBoingo · · Score: 5, Informative
    The wireless video camera, which is heavily advertised on the Internet, is intended to send its video signal to a nearby base station, allowing it to be viewed on a computer or a television. But its signal can be intercepted from more than a quarter-mile away by off-the-shelf electronic equipment costing less than $250.


    Or you could just order a reciever from X10 for $49. Maybe he was buying the 6 camera pack with eagle eye motion sensors and the auto vcr kit for the $250.

    If you order from X10, what ever you do, make sure you give them a disposable e-mail address because they will send you so much spam, you will long for the days when all you received was viagra and porn e-mails.

    -Bingo

    1. Re:Receiving Equipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Or you could just order a reciever from X10 for $49. Maybe he was buying the 6 camera pack with eagle eye motion sensors and the auto vcr kit for the $250.

      Or you could get a good-quality 2.4GHz receiver for $80 or $90 (the X10 ones are crap) and a small yagi, which lets you pick the things up from at least 12 miles away.

  24. Re:page 1 by Elbereth · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    This is not informative; it's copyright infringement.

    If someone were to alert the NY Times that people are moderating up copyright infringement, I wonder what would happen to Slashdot?

  25. Read the story... by OrangeHairMan · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Read the story... by majcher · · Score: 1

      Or use the random login generator and help clog up their database.

      Share and enjoy.

  26. The obvious answer... by Joseph+Vigneau · · Score: 4, Funny

    In the case of the XCam2, the cameras transmit an unscrambled analog radio signal that can be picked up by receivers sold with the cameras. Replacing the receiver's small antenna with a more powerful one and adding a signal amplifier to pick up transmissions over greater distances is a trivial task for anyone who knows his way around a RadioShack and can use a soldering iron.

    It looks like the obvious answer is to ban Radio Shack from selling soldering irons. :^)

    1. Re:The obvious answer... by GigsVT · · Score: 3, Funny

      Soldering irons were already on shaky legal ground due to the DMCA.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:The obvious answer... by _Knots · · Score: 1

      Yes. We don't know that you aren't able to burn entire DVDs onto tubes of EPROM chips and stealing that way. You are, of course, guilty until proven innocent, but we give you no opportunity to prove yourself.

      Welcome to Evil-Free America
      -Knots

      --
      Anarchy$ dd if=/dev/random of=~/.signature bs=120 count=1
  27. It Happened To Me by Keev · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I bought an X-cam about a year ago to catch neighbors dumping garbage on our property. The camera was mounted upstairs, pointing out toward the street. Imagine my surprise when I turned on the receiver for the first time, and the image I saw was..a view of my own house from across the street! Apparently another neighbor had bought an X-cam, and was operating it pointed in our direction. (This was not entirely coincidence since I'd mentioned the garbage cam to them a few weeks back, but still.. ) This was a distance of about maybe 100 feet. (Also, for some reason, our camera signal did not interfere with theirs.)

    --
    A man, a plan, a canal: Suez!
  28. A start anyway by interiot · · Score: 5, Informative
    From X10 themselves:

    Here's How XCam2 Works, and
    X10 cameras and Video Senders use the following frequencies: 2.411GHz, 2.434GHz, 2.453GHz, 2.473GHz. So something like this (the Icom IC-R3) might work, as it can quickly scan the frequencies you're looking for and lock on one once a signal is found.

    Also, from the XCam2 manual: "Refer to the setup and operating instructions that came with the 2.4 GHz Video Receiver, Model VR31A or
    VR36A (sold separately) to set up the Receiver.". In other words, one only needs to buy said on of the suggested receivers for $50-$90 and scan those four channels manually.

    1. Re:A start anyway by interiot · · Score: 2
      AFAIK, the 900mhz band and 2.4mhz are both open for unlicensed use by consumer electronics.

      But yeah, there seems to be an overlap. Digging around a bit, I found these old slashdot posts: I can wipe you out, licensed use trumps unlicensed use, and we were there first.

    2. Re:A start anyway by Mathness · · Score: 1

      And rightly so, since milli hertz is useless for transmitting information.

      In Europe the 900 MHz band is reserved for the GSM mobile phone system.

      --
      Carbon based humanoid in training.
  29. Wait! Let me get this straight... by jerkychew · · Score: 3, Funny

    Are you telling me that wireless devices advertised as inexpensive and aimed at home consumers don't have super-secure encryption built in?? I am shocked and amazed! I mean, If I'm paying 50 bucks for a wireless color video camera, I'd expect some government-level security on those things!!

    Next thing you tell me, it will be easy to eavesdrop on cordless phones and walkie-talkies!!

    1. Re:Wait! Let me get this straight... by BoneFlower · · Score: 2

      "I'd expect some government-level security on those things!!"

      You actually WANT government level security?!?!?!?

  30. Blatant lie in NYT article by dr_dank · · Score: 3, Funny

    In the nearby town of Madison, from the parking lot of a Staples store, workers could be observed behind the cash register.

    Anyone whos been to a Staples knows that there are NEVER any employees at the registers!

    --
    Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    1. Re:Blatant lie in NYT article by Tintagel · · Score: 1

      Madison and Chatham are *extremely* well-off towns. (Avi Rubin's AT&T Labs are in Florham Park, next door to Madison.) Stores around there are well-staffed :-)

  31. Re:Mind er spelling by pyite · · Score: 1

    I believe it's "eavesdrop", i.e. to hide under eaves to spy.

    --

    "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

  32. A nice turn of phrase in the article by ckd · · Score: 4, Funny
    Ads for the "Amazing X10 Camera" have been popping up all over the World Wide Web for months. (Emphasis added.)

    Precisely what people have been complaining about!

    1. Re:A nice turn of phrase in the article by casio282 · · Score: 1

      If only they were actually popping up. It's the popping under that's more insidious.

      --

      :wq
  33. AUGH! by Hagakure · · Score: 2, Funny

    i've been trying to read the NYTimes article but those damned X10 ads keep popping up!!

    --


    If this is Heaven I'm bailin out! I cant tolerate this ol tin-tub, so fulla trash and rats...
  34. Ooooh, scary by Caradoc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, someone might go driving by and spot the transmitted image of my mailman? Unless, of course, the ham operator neighbor's keying up again, and obliterating the signal. Or the other neighbor's using his 2.4GHz cordless phone. Or the neighbor on the other side is trying his 802.11 gateway again.

    I have only one question for anyone who's actually trying this - why bother? The picture generated by an XCam is *crap,* and useless for anything but really grainy and poorly-saturated "surveillance" (and half the time it's useless for that, too!)

    The CMOS module that the XCam uses is crap. The optics are plastic (or really crappy glass), and generate some really funky chromatic distortion, so I replaced the module with a Panasonic CCD module. Much better picture, but you still have to deal with the really nasty interference.

    --
    Specialization is for insects. - R.A.H.
    1. Re:Ooooh, scary by dsoltesz · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Well, we picked up a set of X10's that were coming with the rotating base. Our purpose was to transmit goofy "web cam" and home monitoring stuff -- video of the bird feeders, the dogs in the backyard (we're curious what they do all day to entertain themselves you see), spy on the cats (how in the hell did they get up there?), and as a cheap image capture for the telescope. It hadn't occurred to us the phone was also running at 2.4 GHz, which interfered with the picture. We unplugged the phone, played for a while, then packed everything up and sent it all back -- we weren't about to give up this particular phone in order to keep the cameras :-D

      I thought the system was worth the $250 bucks or so -- four cameras, robotic base, and other accessories. The images were acceptably clear, there's an interesting selection of cameras available, and the robotic base runs very smoothly and quietly. A decent web cam ususally runs around $50 or $60, so I thought it was worth the money.

      Actually, the robotic base is what pushed us over the edge to finally buy a package. We were looking for a cheaper alternative to the $2500 and up price tags we were finding for such things. Even though the set up didn't work for our house, we think using them at work to "monitor" things like the computer rooms, printers, etc. would be handy. Printers and plotters in particular -- some folks in other buildings waste a lot of time walking across campus checking up on their prints.

    2. Re:Ooooh, scary by 311Stylee · · Score: 1

      My uniden 900mhz phone rocks! It is by far the best phone I've ever owned. The base station has it's own battery pack so you can still talk wirelessly during power outages and unpluggings. The battery for the base station also pops out at the touch of a button, so you can swap it with the phone's drained battery; there is never an issue of not having a phone. Does this sound like an ad yet? The reception is perfectly clear - even three stories away through brick and steel - in my experience. The headset is nice too, especially if you don't prefer microwave antennas near your face.here is a link to a uniden 900MHz DSS phone.

    3. Re:Ooooh, scary by dsoltesz · · Score: 1

      Hey, thanks for the info! You put forth a good sales pitch/argument :-D I suspect the X10 fiasco's not the last time I'll run into the 2.4 GHz problem. I have some barely working corded phone (would that be the opposite to cordless?) that I have to drag out during outages. Headset? Nice! Our biggest problem is the money we laid out for the phone -- pitching a $100 phone so we can play with a couple hundred bucks worth of silly cameras didn't really seem logical, but eventually we will have to replace the damn thing!

  35. hasta la mozilla by jrs+1 · · Score: 1

    i'm using mozilla and i don't get any pop up ads.

  36. YOU CAN OPT OUT OF THE X10 ADS! by cliche · · Score: 1

    next time you see the ad click on it and go to their site. on their page theirs a link that will give you a cookie that prevents the ads from apearing. id tell you exactly what the site is and where the thing on the site is, but since i dont see the ads anymore, i cant find out. i think its on their faq, but im not sure. i just know its there.

    1. Re:YOU CAN OPT OUT OF THE X10 ADS! by Anders1 · · Score: 1

      It's hidden pretty well, but I found it here: http://www.x10.com/x10ads.htm.

    2. Re:YOU CAN OPT OUT OF THE X10 ADS! by Parsec · · Score: 1

      Or, with Mozilla, you can right-click (or control-click for Mac users) and "Block Images from this Server".

    3. Re:YOU CAN OPT OUT OF THE X10 ADS! by sulli · · Score: 1

      yes you can. use mozilla.

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
  37. Troll, Flamebait, Offtopic... by fm6 · · Score: 2

    And also smugly cynical. But WTF. Some of the more tightly wound Slashdotters really do need to know this stuff!

  38. WarDriving by TellarHK · · Score: 2

    Heck, I'm still waiting for a good program to use with OSX to do WarDriving with 802.11b. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any decent software out there that'll do anything with my AirPort card.

  39. Just what we need by TEB · · Score: 2, Funny
    more laws to regulate this and protect the consumer from their own ignorance. What ever happened to being responsible for your own actions? If you choose not to educate yourself on a piece of technology that you purchase then you deserve what you get. As mentioned in the article look at all the clueless 802.11b networks.

    As for the cameras themselves they operate in the 2.4GHz ISM band. That band has always been crowded because it doesn't require a license from the FCC to operate in. There has always been information available to anyone that took the effort to listen in. Only now that it has become popular with the public and you have a chance to see a naked nanny has anyone even noticed.

    Let them eavesdrop on the X10 cameras. We all know that the real danger lies in the alien mind rays that my tinfoil hat stops.

    I had a funny sig but a large corporation trademarked it and sued me into poverty.

    --
    Karma: Positive. Mostly affected by the lack of a karma joke in your sig.
    1. Re:Just what we need by halo8 · · Score: 1

      What ever happened to being responsible for your own actions

      ROFL!!! hahaha you must be from Canada or England, i showed that to the office, we had a good laff, you crazy ppl and your crazy ideas.

      if we were responsible.. who would we sue if we spilt hot coffie? would we sue ourselves? hahah i think not my good fellow.

      --
      The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
  40. Probably are by quintessent · · Score: 2

    I wonder if they're doing the things the X10 ads imply they might be doing.

    Spying on the neighbors? Probably.

    And you thought you could spy without anyone watching...

  41. ICOM R3 sucks at this purpose by Nonesuch · · Score: 2, Informative
    If you are considering purchasing the IC-R3, it does not work well in this application.

    The R3 is an all-band receiver with built-in video, and can receive broadcast TV, ATV, and wireless video, including 900Mhz and 2.4Ghz transmissions.

    Unfortunately, the 2.4Ghz range only covers three of the four XCAM frequencies, and the receiver is deaf as a post above 2Ghz, even with a good antenna.

  42. Only works for 30 days... by netsrek · · Score: 1

    from what they say when you go to that page...

    --

    i don't read slashdot anymore.
    1. Re:Only works for 30 days... by Yottabyte84 · · Score: 2

      If you know what you're doing, you can just edit the cookie to expire in 2099

    2. Re:Only works for 30 days... by mosch · · Score: 1
      Actually, that's not the case at all. 32-bit unix-based browsers (mozilla, opera, netscape, konqueror, etc) cannot have a cookie last beyond January of 2038, due to the fact that time is represented with 31 bits, and only the times between 1970 and 2038 exist in the most commonly used functions.

      Operating systems that don't use a defective time model by default can accept a Max-Age on a cookie of a full 32-bit range, and save that expiration date in a non-limiting format. This allows those browsers to expire a cookie up to 136 years after the moment it was set, and that's just following the spec. If the operating system doesn't have a broken time model, one should actually be able to modify that further, beyond what is possible with in the specifications laid out by RFC 2019.

      Thus, in no case is 2099 the last year that you can use. It's either 2038, 2138 or infinite.

    3. Re:Only works for 30 days... by Yottabyte84 · · Score: 2

      What I ment was, you could change the experation date if you knew what you were doing, 2099 was an arbitrary example that I gave little thought to. You're right of course.

  43. Is it "Standard" 2.4ghz video? by Controlio · · Score: 2

    I have a lot of professional wireless video equipment. We do all of our transmits at my work in the 2.4ghz range. It's kind of funny, when a certain local TV station does live remotes from the downtown area, we get their signal on our antennas, reminiscent of finding a backhaul feed in my B.U.D. satellite days.

    Anyways, along with receiving equipment, I have a lot of high-gain Yagi directional antennas. I know the antennas would be good for this sort of thing, but is the x10 receiver just a standard 2.4ghz video transmitter? Should I be able to pick up x10 cameras with my receiver, or even worse, can our broadcasts be picked up by people sitting at home with a cheap x10 receiver?

  44. This can also be good by Kalani · · Score: 1

    People can set up their own mini TV stations. Most of it will probably be crap, but then that's the same case with the web letting everybody publish idiotic opinions like this one.

    --
    ___
    The ends are ape-chosen, only the means are man's. -- Aldous Huxley
  45. Can these be viewed with only software?? by kcurrie · · Score: 1


    Somebody's gotta hack up some sw to do this-- don't make me go out and ACTUALLY BUY HARDWARE!
    The horror!

    Get to work! I'll be checking freshmeat tomorrow!

    --
    -- I speak only for myself.
  46. Alternate Sources for X10 Equipment by cjsnell · · Score: 2


    Does anyone have any alternate sources for the equipment sold on X10.com? Several years ago, before they even started their pop-up campaign, I placed an order from these guys and called three weeks later to ask where my order was (and why they charged my credit card as soon as the order was placed weeks before). The sales rep I talked to was such a flaming asshole that I vowed never to do business with them again. So, does anyone else (reputable) sell this equipment?

    chris

  47. Song: "We must destroy X10" by benb · · Score: 1
  48. Tech TV by Cyberop5 · · Score: 1

    If I remember right, The Screen Savers (TechTV) had a little blurb about surfing the area to pick up on stray x10 signals. Good idea, expose this flaw to the world. A quick search of their site turned up nothing. Maybe someone else could provide a little insite. I could be wrong. ~ops

    --
    Urgo: "I want to live. I want to experience the universe and I want to eat pie!"
    Jack: "Who doesn't??"
  49. Masturbation? by PsychoElf · · Score: 1

    You mean I've been missing out on this kinda thing? When did this come about? I always wondered what my 40gb's of porn was for.

  50. 802.11b and OS X (was Re:WarDriving) by Nonesuch · · Score: 1
    TellarHK writes:
    Heck, I'm still waiting for a good program to use with OSX to do WarDriving with 802.11b.
    Dachb0den is working on Darwin/OS-X support:

    http://lists.dachb0den.com/pipermail/bat/2002-Apri l/000202.html

  51. easedrop?? by Quantuminium · · Score: 1

    Sorry to get all pedantic but what kind of a word is 'easedrop'? Surely you mean 'eavesdrop'?

    This is the part where someone points out that it's actually a clever play on words as regards how 'easy' is it to 'eavesdrop' and I've missed the point completely :)

  52. The most useful thread in ages by Jahf · · Score: 1

    This may be the most informative thread on slashdot.

    In this thread, in just 5 minutes, I learned:

    * How to disable X10 pop-up ads (but only for 30 days)

    * That masturbation has a wide range of uses

    * How to generate a random login for the NY Times website

    Though it is unfortunate that almost nothing in the comments had any direct relevance to the topic at hand.

    --
    It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
  53. Faraday Cages by Tekgno · · Score: 1

    The solution is simple, an EM hardened house.
    By building wire mesh into all the walls and turning the house into a Faraday cage, most of the radiated signal can be blocked and also make the house more impervious to EM disturbance.

    If you were really paranoid you can also do the windows, but if you still want light to get in, all you could do is use real fly-wire (not the cheap plastic crap) and figure out some way to ground it, probably by just grounding the frame.

    The only disadvantage is if you want to go outside and use you cordless phone while gardening or some such. But otherwise, it lessens the chances of somebody snooping you X10, cordless phone and even TEMPEST (totally obliterates the risk if you go hardcore).
    It also has the advantage of cleaning up the airwaves outside for 802.11 comms. It would make everybody happy, except for those trying to gather TEMPEST data, but there are other alternatives for them anyway.
    Just my $A0.005 worth, damn Aussie dollar :(

  54. 2.4 Ghz. Cam fun 'n games by sigint860 · · Score: 1

    After a month of driving around the Nutmeg State with a Wavecom receiver hooked up to the trusty portable boob-tube, the signals intercepted were either broadcast TV signals from Wavecoms being used as a "VCR Rabbit" (remember those circa 1990s that operated on 902-928 Mhz?), a lot of parking lots, and the occassional driveway. All in all, the 2.4 Ghz. ISM band is becoming yet another garbage band with all the cordless phones, 802.11 LANS, microwave ovens, and Wireless Cameras.

    I've had more fun putting the transmitter on an R/C car and driving it around the back '40, or aiming it at the bird feeder. I think eventually I'll have it watch the dog run. Any Connectucut War Drivers (2.0) are more than welcome to help me babysit my Keeshound. I'll even give you a QSL card!

    Just as an FYI, wireless video is found at places other than 2.4 Ghz. I've seen stuff on 433 Mhz. (mostly ham radio "ATV" stuff, but not always), UHF TV (Chs 14-69), and of course 902-928 Mhz.

    Intercept New England