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.
Wasn't this the point of all those annoying X10 ads? :)
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!!
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
The notion that legislation banning certain electronic devices (800 MHz receivers) somehow protects people from eavesdropping is patently absurd.
-John
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.
If only it was true...
Call 1-800-564-8982
/. editors should be very familiar with it...
Press 2, then 5228. Enjoy!
I'm sure all
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.
Find Escorts, Strippers, Massage Parlours, Swingers
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...
------
Today's Top Deals
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.
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.
I guess that explains the 17 year old whose civic has been parked on my yard for the past month.
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.
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 :)
...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
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
protecting people from digital surveillance
... the people are surveiling themselves ... they made the decision to install the cameras in their house and broadcast the results to the world.
And
...with out registering with The New York Times:
8 &ncid=68&e=1&u=/nyt/20020413/ts_nyt/nanny_cam_may_ leave_a_home_exposed
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=6
Orange
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.
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!
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.
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!!
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?
Precisely what people have been complaining about!
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
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.