Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cheap Video Sniffing

Posted by timothy on from the what's-on-channel-five dept.

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?"

10 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. 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. 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.

      --
      Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
  3. 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!

  4. 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
  5. 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)?

  6. 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.
  7. 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.