Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

War Driving Version 2.0

Posted by timothy on from the community-access-television dept.

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.

19 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? :)

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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....

  6. 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 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*

    2. 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)
  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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 :)

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. Read the story... by OrangeHairMan · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...with out registering with The New York Times:

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=68 &ncid=68&e=1&u=/nyt/20020413/ts_nyt/nanny_cam_may_ leave_a_home_exposed

    Orange

  13. 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. :^)

  14. 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.

  15. 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!

  16. 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.