Slashdot Mirror


Cheap Video Sniffing

HadleyRipleyArgusRockefellerDog writes "Want to see what other people find interesting enough to watch with an X10 Camera? Radical Software Group has a page describing how to build a "video sniffer". They say they picked up their first image after walking half a block in NY city. X10's work on the same frequency as 802.11b. .. anyone want a combo WiFi/Video sniffer for Christmas?"

162 comments

  1. Don't you know? by Maradine · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Want to see what other people find interesting enough to watch with an X10 Camera?"

    I already know. A pool, from left to right, and then this hot twenty-something in a blue dress, up and down.

    Really, what else is there?

    --

    trustedworlds.net - gaming, security, and the gunk that lives in between

    1. Re:Don't you know? by RTPMatt · · Score: 1

      guess im the only one who still reads 2600

    2. Re:Don't you know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People still call them 'turds'?

  2. Year Old Dupe by Delphix · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Year Old Dupe by evilviper · · Score: 5, Funny

      No... That's the new Slashdot business plan. Subscribers get to see the story a year early...

      Yes, it's completely intentional.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:Year Old Dupe by oever · · Score: 0

      And the concept is even older. In Duke Nukem 3D, there are tons of these video sniffers showing security camera footage.

      --
      DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
    3. Re:Year Old Dupe by Carnivorous+Carrot · · Score: 0

      > In Duke Nukem 3D, there are tons of these video
      > sniffers showing security camera footage.

      Showing hairy, naked pussies everywhere, yes, I know.

      --
      "Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
    4. Re:Year Old Dupe by Ratphace · · Score: 1


      I don't know why everyone gets thier panties in a bunch over a dupe story. I mean, if those that complained put half as much effort into finding some good content and submitting information this would be a lot better page than it is.

      Sitting back and pointing fingers is easy to do.

    5. Re:Year Old Dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sitting back and pointing fingers is easy to do.
      Tell that to Ali Ismail Abbas.
  3. Legal? Moral? by SilverSun · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess if I put my bedroom on air, I can't expect people to look away.

    --

    KdenLive/PIAVE - non-linear video editing

    1. Re:Legal? Moral? by IroNick · · Score: 0

      Naah... I'll wait for the book.

    2. Re:Legal? Moral? by Snover · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Maybe... maybe not... since it would probably be lonely nights with you and your hand. (After all, we are geeks here.)

      --

      [insert witty comment here]
    3. Re:Legal? Moral? by SilverSun · · Score: 1

      You bet! I have a HUGE ... hand ...

      --

      KdenLive/PIAVE - non-linear video editing

    4. Re:Legal? Moral? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just a question of relative scale... The hand will look huge if the other things are small......

    5. Re:Legal? Moral? by chimpo13 · · Score: 1


      I am tired of these jokes about my giant hand. The first such incidence occured in 1956 when..

    6. Re:Legal? Moral? by Snover · · Score: 1

      Okay apparently I seem to have offended some geeks that don't like to admit that they can't get women. That's perfectly okay! I'm sure you have an amply large manhood to make up for what you're lacking in the women department.

      *snicker*

      --

      [insert witty comment here]
  4. erm...i'll give it a miss by crocodill · · Score: 4, Funny

    knowing what most people seem to get webcams for from connecting to random mofos on things like iphone and netmeeting, i don't think i'll be doing this anytime soon.

    1. Re:erm...i'll give it a miss by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      knowing what most people seem to get webcams for from connecting to random mofos on things like iphone and netmeeting, i don't think i'll be doing this anytime soon.

      We don't want to *talk* to the babes, but *see* them. Big difference. Turn the volume off.

      Less Chatter == More Splatter

    2. Re:erm...i'll give it a miss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Maybe you'd be better served by understanding the product. It's not a webcam. It's a wireless camera, that normally broadcasts to a reciever on a tv or monitor somewhere. Yes you can set it up using software as a rudimentary snap shot taking camera, but it's not a webcam. We aren't THAT stupid.

  5. Mirror by Neophytus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Images are a tad slow for my liking, so here is a mirror.

    1. Re:Mirror by Neophytus · · Score: 1

      i removed it as it is no longer necessary.

  6. Ummm... by Craig+Maloney · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, I'd rather leave all that X10 spycam action to my imagination, thank you very much.

    Looking at baby cribs, kids rooms, and garden sheds just isn't my thing, thanks.

    1. Re:Ummm... by Pike65 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Amen.

      A quick trudge of any *shudder* blog site is more than enough to convince me that everyone else leads a life as boring as mine.

      Of course, it may just be that the people with interesting lives are out living them. Now there's a thought . . .

      --
      "If being a geek means being passionate about something, then I pity those who aren't geeks." - Pike65
    2. Re:Ummm... by zurmikopa · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Looking at baby cribs, kids rooms, and garden sheds just isn't my thing, thanks."

      Now we know what Michael Jackson's new hobby is.

  7. umm, I'm not so sure by fjordboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't see how this is any cheaper than sticking a vhs up to your nose and inhaling.

    Video sniffing...next thing we're gonna have an article on dry erase marker sniffing.

    1. Re:umm, I'm not so sure by Papillon3111 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Video sniffing...next thing we're gonna have an article on dry erase marker sniffing."

      That would truly be useful because I used to do that until I forgot how to take the caps off the... what was I saying again?

  8. Encryption by SonicTooth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does X10 have encryption? Espiecally if these things are being used for security cameras. Or private sex parties either way, i wouldn't want people looking in.

    1. Re:Encryption by Fulkkari · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Does X10 have encryption?

      I tried to find any specs about that, but couldn't find any. I however doubt that there would be any encryption, because all they actually did according to the page was to combine a screen and a X10 reciever. Or am I missing something here?

      You could however check the article in 2600 about "warspying" which said to have inspired them.

      --
      I demand the Cone of Silence!
    2. Re:Encryption by AmigaAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

      no encryption, just a straight 2.4 ghz analogue signal, easy to pick up with any equipment capable fo getting up there...

    3. Re:Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this mean that anybody using a 2.4GHz 802.11g client would be able to recieve the images?

    4. Re:Encryption by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      analogue.

      that means, anyone who bothers to get a receiver can just feed it into their tv..

      (maybe.)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  9. Cool tv though by JVert · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Anyone know where I can get these 4" tvs? Since this article is at least a year old i'm expecting sub $100. Course a 4" touchscreen i'd pay $100.

    1. Re:Cool tv though by The+Jonas · · Score: 3, Informative

      Try PartsExpress. Right now they have a 5.6" LCD for USD$118. Good luck...

    2. Re:Cool tv though by gmajor · · Score: 1

      I remember partsexpress.com from a previous slashdot posting by another user. However, the screen on the front page retails for $120, but it's nice. Ebay might also have some good deals.

      And what happened to the Anonymous Coward option? It's gone!

    3. Re:Cool tv though by bjpirt · · Score: 5, Informative

      good link, after looking through their deals, this looks like the exact same screen as the one used in the article and it comes in at $99.88

    4. Re:Cool tv though by Chacham · · Score: 1

      Actually, yhe one on the front page is 5.6". The one you found is 4".

  10. Security camera? by Fulkkari · · Score: 5, Insightful
    After walking for about a half a block across 13th Street, we got a picture. It was a security camera picture of some interior hallway. Must have been in a nearby building.

    Why in the hell would a security camera be wireless? And this thing doesn't even seem to be encrypted!

    --
    I demand the Cone of Silence!
    1. Re:Security camera? by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why in the hell would a security camera be wireless? To save re-cabling?
      And this thing doesn't even seem to be encrypted! They probably could not imagine that anyone would care enough to tune in. Even if someone tuned in, so what? I would leave it unencrypted even now.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    2. Re:Security camera? by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Offtopic

      In some apartment buildings, the lobby security camera is available via cable tv so that you can see who you're letting in. (Or see who everyone else is letting in. ;^)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:Security camera? by dattaway · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It gets better. Do you know about those long range antennas you can get for your 2.4GHz wireless? They work with the X10 cameras wonderfully. My brother has a pair of 24dBi antennas and let me tell you about the perfect picture from those cameras from miles away. The compact yagi antennas that I have work great too.

      Ever heard of Pringles cans used for X10? That works too!

    4. Re:Security camera? by IroNick · · Score: 1

      Even if someone tuned in, so what?

      Well, if I should break in to somewhere I could be interested to know if I looked good on the screen... who wouldn't?

    5. Re:Security camera? by phillymjs · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Doesn't anyone on here ever watch TV or movies? Seems to me a wireless security camera would actually *help* anyone who might want to break into a given place-- then nobody needs to infiltrate ahead of the break-in to tap into a wired video system.

      First, the bad guys could watch the feed from that wireless camera unknown to anyone for weeks to "case" the target.

      Secondly, all they'd probably have to do to render that camera useless would be intercept some video of the area it watches when said area was unoccupied, change any necessary onscreen time/date stamps (which aren't even an issue if it's a cheap-ass X10 camera), and rebroadcast it with a signal strong enough to overpower the signal from the real camera.

      Of course, this all becomes a non-issue if you assume that an X10 camera would never be used to secure something valuable enough to be of interest to technically-sophisticated thieves who could easily defeat the system. But this is America, and stupider things have happened.

      ~Philly

    6. Re:Security camera? by Surak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even if someone tuned in, so what?

      Security cameras don't usually record every square inch, because in many cases it isn't very practical or cost effective. If you were going to (hypothetically speaking of course) break into a place, you would definitely want to know what the camera *couldn't* see. You'd watch the camera, compare with what you know about the inside of the building, and through the process of elimination -- voila! You now know what the camera doesn't see.

      Sometimes people who place security cameras don't think about other possible ways of entering buildings. They usually watch the door. But one could conceivably enter a building through windows or ventilation systems.

      Even if you had a camera looking at every possible means of entry, chances are good that one or more of those cameras can be disabled or fooled somehow. Knowing what the camera can and can't see can reveal strategies for disabling or fooling the cameras.

    7. Re:Security camera? by Surak · · Score: 1

      Of course, this all becomes a non-issue if you assume that an X10 camera would never be used to secure something valuable enough to be of interest to technically-sophisticated thieves who could easily defeat the system.

      You don't even need technical sophistication beyond being able to see what the camera sees. In most places that use security cameras, they don't cover every square inch. In most cases it isn't very practical and sometimes it's not even possible.

      People who place security cameras tend to focus on the door or on the counter in a liquor store or gas station. But in some cases it may be possible to hide outside the view of the camera -- just long enough to disable or fool it somehow.

      You don't always need to be totally sophisticated in disabling the camera, either. If your plan is more of a "smash-and-grab" type robbery, for instance, you may need only to break the camera by throwing a rock at it, or by shooting it with a gun. If you're standing just out of the camera's field of view, you won't be caught on tape doing it.

    8. Re:Security camera? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      That is a valid argument for securing the transmission, but I don't think it's all that compelling for visible cameras.

      If you can see the camera, then you can pretty much tell what it can and can't see. It may have a wide angle lens, but it's still pretty much limited to what it is pointed at. Visible cameras are more for deterrent value anyway.

      I think your argument mostly applies to hidden cameras. Discovering the location of the hidden cameras would defeat the purpose of hiding them.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    9. Re:Security camera? by (H)elix1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Doesn't anyone on here ever watch TV or movies? Seems to me a wireless security camera would actually *help* anyone who might want to break into a given place-- then nobody needs to infiltrate ahead of the break-in to tap into a wired video system.

      I worked a couple jobs while paying for college. Security (the polyester kind) being one of the less rewarding - almost as fun as column chromatography of feces samples in the lab. Anyhow, tape decks were spendy, broken cameras were cheap. I'd wire up a couple cameras in the open and leave a blind spot. That is where I stuck the hidden camera connected to one of two working tape decks. Just like shooting fish in a barrel. You would see them look to make sure the cameras did not cover that area, walk back, and stuff the goods in their pockets/lunchbox/etc.

      Don't assume. The concept of honeypots extend outside of IT....

    10. Re:Security camera? by Wakkow · · Score: 2, Funny

      Great.. every time you're watching your friend's porn over x10, I have trouble downloading porn on my wireless laptop.

    11. Re:Security camera? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      If you were going to (hypothetically speaking of course) break into a place, you would definitely want to know what the camera *couldn't* see.

      Or record it, then disable the camera and broadcast the recording while you waltz in, just like in da movies.

    12. Re:Security camera? by Surak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not those dome-covered cameras, like you see in department stores or grocery stores.

      Even with a totally visible camera, you can't usually tell how wide the angle of view is on the lens. Also, some visible cameras are capable of moving, and do so on a programmed frequency. You'd definitely want to know what that camera can see.

      If you have a place that has a lot of visible cameras the space available to hide in may be as little 2-3 sq. ft. Without being able see that space for sure, you might not take the chance, but if you can pick up the video image via X10 video sniffing, you will know exactly where that space is.

    13. Re:Security camera? by dattaway · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't forget about antenna polarization. A receive antenna that matches the direction (polarization) has full strength. Rotate your antenna 90 degrees from your neighbor's vertical polarization into a horizontal orientation and his signal will drop greatly. Kind of like polarized sunglasses blocking out all light of a certain direction.

      Something to think about when sniffing or trying to prevent reception of undesired signals.

    14. Re:Security camera? by Avakado · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd wire up a couple cameras in the open and leave a blind spot. That is where I stuck the hidden camera connected to one of two working tape decks. Just like shooting fish in a barrel. You would see them look to make sure the cameras did not cover that area, walk back, and stuff the goods in their pockets/lunchbox/etc.

      How is this better than making the last camera visible, preventing the crimes altogether?

      --
      The world will end in 5 minutes. Please log out.
    15. Re:Security camera? by (H)elix1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      How is this better than making the last camera visible, preventing the crimes altogether?

      Because 'complete' camera coverage did not stop shrinkage. I tried it. People can be very ingenious, and it took real work to figure out not only what, but how and when stuff disappeared. Honeypots got the stupid/cocky ones - which was within the scope of what a minimal paying job that let me study. Having the cops haul away those caught made an impact but even showing people we would prosecute was only a deterrent, not a solution.

      Anyhow, only a night job while going to school. I'm sure someone else better qualified could shed some real light on the effectiveness of surveillance.

    16. Re:Security camera? by treat · · Score: 1
      Even if someone tuned in, so what? I would leave it unencrypted even now.

      How are you preventing a replay attack on this insecure link?

    17. Re:Security camera? by Tokerat · · Score: 1


      Watch a little too much Speed, did we?

      You'd think they'd notice if there was TWO signals with the same picture?

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    18. Re:Security camera? by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      If it's an FM signal (which it probably is) then it exhibits the 'capture effect'; If one signal is significantly stronger (3-6dB is probably enough) than the other, the weaker signal is completely masked.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    19. Re:Security camera? by CvD · · Score: 1

      Given a geometry of a room you can calculate how many cameras you need and where to place them. There's a geometric algorithm which will determine this for you. Its commonly referred to as the guarding an art gallery problem. Pretty cool stuff. :-)

    20. Re:Security camera? by Zarquon · · Score: 1

      And these cameras are low powered, and can often be snowed out simply by turning on a microwave within several hundred feet.. a simple jamming followed by 'resumption' of normal service may be overlooked..

      --
      "'Tis great confidence in a friend to tell him your faults, greater to tell him his." --Poor Richard's Almanac
  11. 2600 had an article on this as well... by The+Beezer · · Score: 1

    Don't know if their site has it or not - I'm at work and it's blocked for me. Anyone have more info on it compared to this story?

  12. I'd never do this by AndroidCat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh, not because of any ethical issues about spying. (War-tomming?) But mainly because I refuse to buy anything from X10 after all those pop-up ads.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  13. I know nobody is going to read tha article by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But is is hardly BUILDING anything. It's instructions on assembling (poorly, I might add) an X10 video receiver, a small LCD panel, and a battery. This isn't even the actual source of the story on hot wo build it (it came from 2600....which is even credited on the site).

    More /. quality.

    --
    Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
    1. Re:I know nobody is going to read tha article by GMontag · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Very true, all it has is how to bring together a 2.4 GHZ analog receiver, battery and screen. Big wow.

      Plus the odd closing statement: anyone want a combo WiFi/Video sniffer for Christmas? Well, I do, but I certainly can not find out from that article. Will have to wait for someone to coax a WiFi card into sniffing analog signals and playing them on a computer.

    2. Re:I know nobody is going to read tha article by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 1

      Plus the odd closing statement: anyone want a combo WiFi/Video sniffer for Christmas?

      Yeah...useful would have been giving me a link to some software that lets me see X10 video using the built in wireless on my laptop. I seriously doubt that's going to happen, but I don't really know how X10 video works. If it's just analog 2.4, it's never gonna happen. If they bastardize 802.11b somehow, it MIGHT be possible.

      I know what you're thinking after that ramble. Shut up. It's /. I'm allowed to go of half-cocked with no idea of what I'm talking about, doing nothing more than making wild assumptions. The only place I screwed up was actually reading the article.

      --
      Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
    3. Re:I know nobody is going to read tha article by madfgurtbn · · Score: 1

      Will have to wait for someone to coax a WiFi card into sniffing analog signals and playing them on a computer.

      A better bet is "software defined radio": http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad, get me out of this.
    4. Re:I know nobody is going to read tha article by serial+frame · · Score: 1
      Agreed.


      Anyhow, the submitter failed to consider how fucking horrid the interference would be in a system proposed by his closing statement.

      --

      -
      And the Angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots! The cries of the carrots!"
  14. uhm by papasui · · Score: 1

    People actually buy that x10 crap?

    1. Re:uhm by Restil · · Score: 1

      If the ads weren't working, you wouldn't see them all the time.

      -Restil

      --
      Play with my webcams and lights here
  15. X10 cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I can just see it now...

    (popup)
    Buy are new X10 Camera. Broadcast your personal life to your neighborhood! Publicise your life! Offer expires 11:59:59tonight.

    1. Re:X10 cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous for my job sake:)

      Actually, I work at X10 and LOTS of people buy these :) i even have some in my house. Not cameras but other home automation. It's great as long as you perverts stay at home.

  16. How about by Absurd+Being · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just a radar type device for detecting all cameras in the area? Right now, we can only assume we're being watched at all times, rather than knowing that we're watched at all times directly.

    --
    Karma: Excellent^(-t/Tau), Tau=Wittiness/Trollishness
    1. Re:How about by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

      Just pick up a frequency counter from Radio Shack and sweep for them yourself.

  17. YOU FAIL IT! by YOU+FAIL+IT! · · Score: 0, Insightful
    I'm sorry, "Cowboy Bill", but you are a FAILURE! This is not the first post! Where are your cows now? Laughing at you for being a complete and utter pathetic FAILURE, thats where! Only the truly elite can get the first post, thats why you have FAILED!

    YOU FAIL IT!

  18. Re:we must destroy x10 by TrbleClef · · Score: 2, Funny

    You could at least credit KOMPRESSOR for that.

  19. OH NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    passer-bys are aware that 2 people are currently occupying the hallway, now all of our corporate secrets shall be revealed.

  20. Supply Vs Demand by Malicious · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do enough people ACTUALLY respond to the popup ads and buy these dammed things to make this viable?
    What a wonderful society we live in.
    Someone should set up an X10 looking at the image from goatse and broadcast it for any voyers out there.

    --
    01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
    1. Re:Supply Vs Demand by LafinJack · · Score: 1

      There wouldn't be any popups (or telemarketers, for that matter) if people didn't buy the stuff.

      --
      we are building a religion
      a limited edition
      we are now accepting callers
      for these pendant key chains
    2. Re:Supply Vs Demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Someone should set up an X10 looking at the image from goatse and broadcast it for any voyers out there.

      And get arrested for distributing porn to minors. No thanks.

    3. Re:Supply Vs Demand by DMDx86 · · Score: 1
      You'll be okay as long as you post a warning on top of the image, such as:

      The goatse.cx lawyer has informed us that we need a warning! So.. if you are under the age of 18 or find this photograph offensive, please don't look at it. Thank you!

  21. X10 is poor quality anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the X10 stuff is pretty flimsy and overpriced
    even at the discount special deals they always have.

    1. Re:X10 is poor quality anyway by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Are there decent alternative vendors?

    2. Re:X10 is poor quality anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The stuff I've bought from them (before the pop-ups) was exactly the same quality as other X-10 protocol stuff. If you open them up, they are all the exact same inside. You can't bet the prices anywhere.

      They tried to screw me out of $10 on my credit card. Not a lot of money, but no one would tell me what the charge was for. I finally wrote a claim with my CC company and got my money back.

      Then they started the pop-up and spy-on-girls stuff. There's no why I would buy from them again.

    3. Re:X10 is poor quality anyway by c_g_hills · · Score: 0, Troll

      SmartHome is my preferred supplier of X-10 equipment.

    4. Re:X10 is poor quality anyway by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      A good place to start are the ads in Curcuit Cellar I *think* they still do printed copies. I haven't been round to a good magazine store in ages.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  22. finally.... by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Free Porn!

    1. Re:finally.... by C0LDFusion · · Score: 2, Funny

      Free as in Speech, or Free as in Beer?

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    2. Re:finally.... by falzer · · Score: 1

      Free as in Speech, or Free as in Beer?

      Free as in splurge.

  23. Non-Modder Friendly Solution by MyMainManVERN · · Score: 5, Informative

    Icom has a smaller solution and with many other features such as being compact and lightweight. Both features that will keep you traveling further and enjoying the spoils of unsuspecting X10 users for many hours to come.

    --
    --Of course this is definitely an unscheduled visit!
    1. Re:Non-Modder Friendly Solution by jackmakrl · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't own a r3. I own its little brother, the r2. I have been following the word on the street regarding their performance. They are pretty much deaf to anything outside the tv broadcast bands. Many people are very disappointed with their purchase, especially the ones that bought one hoping to receive X-10 transmissions. You can hook up a different antenna and a preamp but then you are defeating the purpose of a tiny self contained unit. And the performance isn't as good as the X-10 receivers.... Don't buy one of these if you want to watch anything besides broadcast tv.

    2. Re:Non-Modder Friendly Solution by MyMainManVERN · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the FYI. I haven't purchased the r3 or the r2, mostly because I'm still a poor college student. The X10 FAQ site quotes the following as the transmission frequencies for its video "senders".

      X10 cameras and Video Senders use the following frequencies:
      Channel A: 2.411 GHz
      Channel B: 2.434 GHz
      Channel C: 2.453 GHz
      Channel D: 2.473 GHz

      Given that Channels A & B are at the outer most edge of the r3's receiving range, and Channels C & D are outside the receiving range of the r3, which is quoted by the r3's specs page. I could see why there would be the need for a pre-amp and external antenna. Oh well I guess the simplest and cheaper solutions are most often the best solutions, though sometimes slightly heavier.

      --
      --Of course this is definitely an unscheduled visit!
  24. Simply Amazing! by Andrew+Lockhart · · Score: 5, Funny

    A 2.4Ghz video sniffer built with *GASP* a 2.4Ghz video receiver!

    1. Re:Simply Amazing! by Selanit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah. I was underwhelmed too.

      I wonder, though. X10 cameras and 802.11b equipment do work on the same frequency. Would it be possible to write a program that would allow you to receive X10 data with a WiFi card? We've got the GNU Radio program that can receive HDTV signals and radio signals and so on. Perhaps that could be modified to grab X10 signals through your wifi card.

      Mind you, it may be that the two technologies are too different to be easily adapted to one another. Sharing spectrum is only one factor to be considered, and a fairly small one at that. Any X10 geeks care to comment on the feasibility of receiving X10 signals with 802.11b hardware?

    2. Re:Simply Amazing! by josecanuc · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be possible to adapt an 802.11 card to receive the signals. The X-10 video is analog. The GNU-Radio software doesn't receive signals. It basically does the math to raw RF signals, which have been frequency-translated (called transverting) to a range that is able to be captured by a high-end data acquisition board. The 802.11 equipment isn't designed to pass along that raw data.

      Perhaps one day there will be a bit of hardware that will allow us to upload DSP programs to it and have it able to display any bit of RF signals, but that day isn't here yet. It would be great to have a single little device that could be a wireless network card one hour, then a television receiver the next, cell phone, bluetooth, etc...

    3. Re:Simply Amazing! by Sabalon · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point - they did the X-TREME mod of hooking it up to a video screen. I've been trying to build one of these for a while, but stupid me, I was hooking it up to an ethernet card. :)

    4. Re:Simply Amazing! by buck_wild · · Score: 1

      "Yeah. I was underwhelmed too."

      Yeah, but have you ever just been whelmed?

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
  25. Bah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is hardly "building" anything. It's slapping together off-the-shelf items and holding them in place with electrical tape. It's like something I would have built when I was ten.

  26. Only in New York.. by Wes+Janson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    could this be of any serious usefulness. Because, really, what is the density per-square-mile of wireless cameras (not to mention the density-per-square-state of *interesting* cameras)?

  27. Start your own TV-studio by rastakid · · Score: 4, Funny

    It would even be cooler if you could send your own videos to the cam's receiver. Imagine sending your pre-released DivX movie to the security officers ;-)

    1. Re:Start your own TV-studio by Restil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually... you can.

      Either overpower the other signal, or take out the other security camera.

      It would be a lot more effective than hanging a picture in front of the camera.

      -Restil

      --
      Play with my webcams and lights here
    2. Re:Start your own TV-studio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      X10 employee again

      This is posible. You would need a sender and a video source, and an amplifier for the radio signal to push there radio signal out of the way.

  28. you mean people actually have X10 cameras? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    you click the popups! you promote them! you are the enemy!

    hypocrites! all of you!

  29. Child abuse by jhines · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here in my town, someone captured the neighbor beating their kid. The video tape made short work of the legal procedings.

    Yeah, about a year ago.

    1. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in my town, someone captured the neighbor beating their kid. The video tape made short work of the legal procedings.

      And what if that kid now grows up to be the next Hitler because he doesn't have proper discipline in his life? HuH? How are you going to feel when a few million people are ethnically cleansed because of some panty-waist complaining about how other people discipline their children?

    2. Re:Child abuse by donglekey · · Score: 1

      And what if that kid now grows up to be the next Hitler because he doesn't have proper discipline in his life?

      Ironically enough, Hitler was abused severly as a child.

    3. Re:Child abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps he wasn't hit hard enough...

  30. Okay... by athakur999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Slashdot people get all uppity about browser cookies from advertising companies and complain about their loss of privacy.

    Then they turn around and say "cool, I need to get me some of that" to a device that lets you invade other people's privacy without their knowledge or consent.

    Of course, Slashdot people are also "we hate the MPAA, when does the new Matrix movie open?" too, so I guess I shouldn't be too shocked :)

    --
    "People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
    1. Re:Okay... by Catnapster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a difference between what is being discussed and invasion of privacy. If I encrypt the feed, breaking it would be an invasion of privacy; however, the only "privacy" you get for broadcasting unencrypted signal is privacy from people without receivers.

      It's like if I walk down the street and people use X-ray glasses to stare at my crotch - that is an invasion of privacy. But this is the equivalent of me walking down the street with my dick dangling merrily. If I show it for the world to see, it's pretty dumb to get mad at people who look.

      --
      The world can be wrong today for once.
    2. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when you go on the web you allow people to set cookies (allowing them to look at your pee pee), so by your reasoning you should't be complaining about that either.

    3. Re:Okay... by Danse · · Score: 1

      True enough. Anyone that hasn't figured out how to block cookies yet shouldn't be on the web.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    4. Re:Okay... by athakur999 · · Score: 1

      It's more like accidentally leaving the shade in your house open. If you lived across the street and pointed a camera into the window, I'd feel pretty violated. Telling me "you should have encrypted the photons you were reflecting out the window" wouldn't make me feel any less violated.

      --
      "People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
    5. Re:Okay... by MisterFancypants · · Score: 1
      There is a difference between what is being discussed and invasion of privacy. If I encrypt the feed, breaking it would be an invasion of privacy; however, the only "privacy" you get for broadcasting unencrypted signal is privacy from people without receivers.

      Yeah, and if someone forgets and leaves their keys in the car, they are just ASKING me to steal it... Nice rationalization, buddy.

      Most people don't even understand the implications of not encrypting the signal.. Not everyone is a geek..

    6. Re:Okay... by ralmeida · · Score: 1

      I've seen this answer so many times here. I think today is my time to say it.

      Slashdot is not a single person. It's not a group of people that think the same way and have the same opinions about everything. That's why you see different --and contradictory-- point of views here.

      --
      This space left intentionally blank.
    7. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Slashdot people are LOSERS.

    8. Re:Okay... by Catnapster · · Score: 1

      That's not an entirely suitable analogy. Now, if you were to have a car without any sort of key system, then yes, you ARE asking for someone to steal it.

      In addition, if I steal your car, you don't have the car anymore. On the other hand, if I watch the broadcasted signal from your X10, you can still get the signal. You haven't lost anything. You might say that you lost your privacy, but like I said, if you're going to set up a wireless camera with no encryption, you didn't have privacy to begin with.

      As for the bit about people not understanding... I can recognize insecure setups, and not just geeky stuff. There's a classic example of this. If Joe Sixpack keeps his Playboy magazines in a drawer, it would be wrong for neighborhood children to go looking for them. But if he just leaves them on the coffee table with the window open, then it's hardly reprehensible for said children to notice, because he didn't try to hide them.

      Am I hard to understand? If Joe thinks that leaving his porn out in the open is privacy, then he's wrong, and he deserves whatever he gets as a result. And don't tell me that it's different because it's a wireless camera feed. Just because something deals with technology doesn't excuse you from being ignorant.

      --
      The world can be wrong today for once.
    9. Re:Okay... by Catnapster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not telling you to encrypt photons - I'm telling you to close the shade.

      If you're filming things with your nifty wireless camera that you don't feel comfortable with people watching, then use a more secure method (like, say, a wired camera). If what you're doing requires wireless capability, and you recognize that, chances are you could find a more secure way to do it.

      Going with your example... because people could point cameras into the window, if it mattered to you, you would want to close the windowshade, so people couldn't take pictures of you anymore. That's what I do - literally, in real life.

      It's been stated that Joe Sixpack might not understand this, but really, you're installing a miniature "radio station" that transmits video feed. If someone with a receiver picks up the signal, they're not doing anything wrong.

      If you're going to go wardriving, trying to find these signals, then you're starting to go into a gray area. Even then, though, you don't know whether someone put this camera up for their personal use, or as a goodwill to all the voyeurs in the world.

      --
      The world can be wrong today for once.
  31. Sociology hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The interest expressed here in building one of these just goes to show you that that its not just the RIAA, MPAA, goverment, spyware, interested in using all this cool new technology to spy on people. Joe Sixpack wants in on the action.

    great.

  32. Just think... by clump · · Score: 1

    You could deliberately click the pop-ups to proliferate these x10 things. You then would have more insecure cameras to snoop on. Clicking pop-ups could have a socialogical impact...

  33. Yet ... by webmaker · · Score: 1

    One more shining example that some people need to get a life and a therapist.

  34. IN SOVIET RUSSIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    X10 camera sniffs j00!

  35. Re:we must destroy x10 by DJ-Pandemic · · Score: 1

    Never thought I'd see someone mention Kompressor on /.

  36. Wireless receiver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Here is a wireless receiver for only $88.

  37. Do we need the video receiver? by ElGanzoLoco · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Isn't there a way to get those camera's signal through standard wi-fi equipment? Or do we need the assorted X10 video receiver (as the one shown in the article?)

    --
    Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
  38. This is a very good thing! by NerveGas · · Score: 1


    Just the other day, my boss was telling me that now when he and his wife stay in someone's guest bedroom, he's always nervous about whether there is an X10 camera hidden in there.

    I suppose I could build him one of these, and he could have at least some idea of whether he's being watched or not...

    steve

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    1. Re:This is a very good thing! by jareds · · Score: 1

      WTF is your boss sleeping in the houses of people whom he doesn't trust not to tape him in bed with his wife??

  39. Useful? by Cruciform · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, the average reader isn't going to find much use in this, but imagine how handy it would be to the average burglar or rapist. They don't have to take the inital risk of peeking in the windows.

    You can scope out a house in advance, see if anyone is home, etc. etc.

    Wireless functionality is great, but I wouldn't use those cameras in my home without some form of encryption.

  40. or just buy one by g4dget · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Or get one of these: Icom R3. Far more portable.

    1. Re:or just buy one by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

      Very cool. I like this.
      I'm afraid to ask how much though ???
      It's got to be up there $$$ 300+ or more....
      I didn't notice a price, that's usually a bad sign when they don't list the price.

    2. Re:or just buy one by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 1

      Looks like it's retailing for just over 400 bucks.

      --
      "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
    3. Re:or just buy one by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

      Ouch!
      Too pricey for me to add to my toy box.

    4. Re:or just buy one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it'd sure be fun having one. And with a Spectrum Analyzer at hand it would be an fairly easy task finding active channels. Maybe to expensive for most people, but as a prehistoric EW guy I know how fun this can be ;-)

  41. If You Wanna Look at a Hallway... by reallocate · · Score: 1

    ...I'll sell you tickets to look at mine.

    Beats a couple hundred bucks spent for that hardware.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  42. Re:Only in New York..and the UK! by Silent_E · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, the UK, and London especially, has tons of video surveillance. (See The New York Times, October 7, 2001, "BEING WATCHED: A Cautionary Tale for a New Age of Surveillance" By JEFFREY ROSEN--my appologies for not knowing how to mirror this.) I'd want to know if I were on camera.... I don't really imagine doing anything that anyone couldn't see in public. But depending on what happens to the tapes, I can certainly imagine as camera become increasingly present, wanting to patronize certain businesses over others on the basis of how little they spy on me.

  43. cool fun but, by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    Been there, done that. This is really nothing new by any means.
    The way things are nowdays I wouldn't want to be seen walking around toting something that looks like what they built.

    Liable to get you hauled in for a chat...

  44. Funny article about X-10 by hubbah · · Score: 2, Funny

    I have a bit to say about the X-10 here, it's really not all it's cracked up to be:

    Surveillance Losing Its Fun...

  45. Extra window in the house by jhines · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I picked up a cheap hard wired color ccd camera, and now instead of a blank screen on a turned off TV, I have a video feed of the back yard, and the bird feeder, and wild life action.

    It is like an extra window in the house.

  46. What a joke!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just use this

    http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?MfcISAP IC ommand=GetResult&query=icom+r3+&cgiurl=http%3A%2F% 2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2F&ht=1&from=R10&currdisp=2&it emtimedisp=1&st=2&SortProperty=MetaEndSort&BasicSe arch=

    Icom IC-R3 Instead... I would never carry that gigantic contraption along with me...

  47. Finally ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a reason for geeks everywhere to get out of the house!
    [and this one's a little more accessible to most than war-driving!]

  48. Highly Illegal by Bruha · · Score: 1

    This definately would fall under the same category of a tempest type system where you're still picking up a private camera system or monitor of something else.

    Think there's a associated federal law about this.

  49. Re: Start your own Radio Station by usurper_ii · · Score: 1

    Back in the day when cell phones were mostly analog and scanners could still pick up conversations, I used to think about hooking up a cd player to a cell phone and broadcasting my own show so that all the people listening to conversations could listen to my "station." Heck, I know a lot of people that were listening to cell phone conversations back then, so I might of had more listeners than some of the AM stations in my town.

    Usurper_ii

  50. Ventillation Shaft, not for a million dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What most people that have seen mission impossible don't realise is that shafts are insulated. This prickly insulation is painfull and easily torn (leading to much ichiness).
    Did i mention the shaft is fitted with 3 inch spikes to keep the insulation in place? Anyone who can sucessfully get through without dying of blood loss deserves at least some loot.

    Course this is only how we do it in 'oz. Perhaps Americans with their usual concern for energy wastage haven't discovered insulation yet.

    1. Re:Ventillation Shaft, not for a million dollars by shepd · · Score: 1

      >Perhaps Americans with their usual concern for energy wastage haven't discovered insulation yet.

      From what I've seen on my cabling adventures, we in North America insulate them on the outside, if we bother to do so. :)

      But the rivets every few feet, yeah, they'd be a bitch. But with some thick jeans and a leather jacket and perhaps you might feel safe enough to deal with them.

      Of course, what the stupid burglar won't realise is that the straps for the venting are only designed to hold the venting up. 180 lbs. of robber would surely tear the system from its mounts.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  51. X10 != X10.com, the annoying pop-up company by sdo1 · · Score: 4, Informative
    It's important to note that X10 is NOT the same thing as that annoying popup company, X10.com (and no, I won't even link to them). X10 is a low speed communication standard that has been around for a long time.

    Do not dismiss X10 (the technology) just because some lame company has hijacked it and promotes the use of the products for illegal surveillance (yes, making a recording of you trying to boink your drunk and ugly date without her knowing is indeed illegal).

    There are plenty of good companies to get X10 products from without going through X10.com. Smarthome and Radio Shack are a couple.

    It's a shame X10.com chose the sleasy marking route because it really has tainted a pretty decent and useful technology.

    -S

    --
    --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
  52. Does anyone else see the irony... by picoears · · Score: 1

    Of snooping on people using these webcams to snoop?

  53. Parts Express or Part Sex Press by coinreturn · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't stick my thing in the part sex press.

  54. Hmmm.... by eaddict · · Score: 1

    Wonder how I can increase the pickup range of these things. I have a DVD screen in my van that has RCA jacks available. This would be neat to hook up the receiver and drive around. I know what I will be doing tonight!!!

    --
    "If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
  55. Re:we must destroy x10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, the X10 is useless against the KRUSHING POWER OF KOMPRESSOR. We've heard wonderous story of KOMPRESSOR in Guitar Center, KRUSHING 'Stairway to heaven' players.

    Imagine KOMPRESSOR versus X10. Watch out, X10! KOMPRESSOR WILL USE KRUSHING POWER AGAINST YOUR WIMPY SIGNAL!

    KOMPRESSOR DOES NOT DANCE, sure. But he will certainly be celebrating the death of the X10. :-)