Slashdot Mirror
Walgreens PureDigital Camera Hacked
Powercntrl writes "While the Ritz version of the PureDigital single-use camera was recently hacked, the Walgreens version wasn't - until now. Codeman, the same guy who brought us the I-Opener hack, found a way to add a standard Smartmedia interface to the Walgreens camera and extract images with a standard Smartmedia reader. Links to sample images showing the camera's quality are included."
The reason for getting excited is that you can get these for $10 each. Walgreens expects that you'll return them to get your pictures "processed", and then they'll turn around and sell the cameras again to somebody else.
$10 for a camera that shoots 1280x1024 plus has a flash certainly isn't bad - but then you're going to rack up the expense of a SmartMedia socket, soldering, the memory card, and optionally, your own soldered USB connection. Even if you figure $40-$50 worth of materials, it's not a bad deal, if you can settle for its washed-out colors.
What's your damage, Heather?
Anybody wanna buy my hacked iopener that I don't use anymore so I can buy a bunch of these cameras?
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
I needed a digital camera. Santa's going to be visiting a tad earlier this year. To tell you the truth, a reusable digital camera is just begging to be hacked. Why these companies are putting them out at all is beyond me, because the analog film quality is so much better.
Could a car manufacturer sue me for taking their cheapest car, installing third party leather seats, and pimping it out to the max? I would be circumventing their luxury line and bypassing all their dealer options and business model. Should I be considered... a criminal?
Let me get it all out of the way for y'all, ok?
Did I miss anyone?
Please help metamoderate.
What's the point of digital without an LCD? None. For disposible, nothing beats film. If digital rentals are to take place, they should be in some sort of locked waterproof plastic case that must be torn up to get access to it... unless you have the Walgreen's key. Also, calling it a rental would be better - and charging a deposit fee to keep people from using them for this purpose.
I can hardly contain my excrement...
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
According to this, 2 megapixels.
God, can't anyone take a damn joke? I hope you all get meta-moderated to hell.
Please help metamoderate.
To my knowledge, there is no law that says you don't own a material object that you bought. Like you're allowed to destroy the things you buy, no? But don't trust me, I'm not very well informed about laws.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
pay in cash at a Walgreens you normally don't go to (considering that they are mostly in Wisconsin right now I don't think that will be a problem).
The real benefit on these cameras (after they're hacked) is that you can use them where you wouldn't want to risk your $100-500 camera.
For example, most people don't want the expense of having to risk a high-end digital camera for underwater (SCUBA, snorkel) shots. The Ritz camera (when hacked to interface with USB) is a great camera for use in a shallow-depth enclosure (because it has a flash) and you don't care if it's destroyed because $10 is a mere fraction of the cost of diving (it might be less expensive than the compressed AIR you're breathing while doing it).
Also, think about skiers or other extreme sports people what kick the living crap out of their gear. This makes a digital (albeit crappy) camera something that you can actually use with reckless abandon and not feel so bad when after the Nth time you fall on your *ass after a bad trip down the moguls it finally gives up. (you just hope that it lasts you a couple of trips).
Granted it's crappy but, again, a niche use is still a good use.
This is why they don't cache webpages. RTFF!
----------------------
58.0% slashdot corrupt
codeman:
p d_board_hr_back_mod ..
..
.
..
/ website/r es44442e bsite/r es44441r y/website/r es44443s ite/r es44445
ok i did some hacking on the walgreess version and here's what i have done..
first thanks to zonyl for getting me some cameras to mess with..
ok if you look at http://www.linux-hacker.net/html/gallery/website/
you will see there is a daughter board on there with the nand flash for picture storage
if you remove that board you can add a smartmedia socket and using smartmedia card you will
be able to get the pics with a smartmedia reader standard jpg's but it will not do more that
25 pics still (think its using fat12)..
also there is a serial port there labeled rs232 it a ttl level serial port
pin 1 rx []square on board
pin 2 tx
pin 3 gnd
pin 4 data out ?? for lcd ?? video ??
if you hook up a max232 type chip to the board and a pc , in a term program hit
space bar and the camera will return a 0x01 hex (looks like it does autobaud rate)
and if you hit the - key twice it will trigger the flash and count the remaining
counter down but does not write to flash
and if you send a 029 dec (hold alt and type 029 on keypad then release alt) if will
change the format of the data coming out on pin 4..( dont know yet )
so far thats all i got in one night
codeman
here are some pic to get a better idea of how it works
daughter card removed
http://www.linux-hacker.net/html/gallery
smartmedia socket added
http://www.linux-hacker.net/html/gallery/w
here it is complete.
http://www.linux-hacker.net/html/galle
another one
http://www.linux-hacker.net/html/gallery/web
there is a door for the smartmedia card
codeman
..."slashdotted already. they must be hosting it on a hacked camera"
I see your point. However, if you actually buy the product, it's not illegal. If you're merely licensing the product, then you're altering someone else's equipment. Alternatively, perhaps the author of the HOWTO could be prosecuted for advocating destruction of property.
To use your analogy, I'm in trouble if I pimp out a Hertz rental car and then fail to return it. If I buy a Kia, however, and then put in BMW accessories that I purchased, neither Kia nor BMW will care (although some BMW employees may get heartache).
I was only able to get a the picture of the hack. It looks promising so I'm heading to Walgreens to pick one up for use as a digital camera back in my 35mm SLR.
http://ice.syne.net:88/sd/sm_hack.jpg
I don't know much about the hack, other than than the information regarding the camera at http://earth.prohosting.com/puredig/. What I'm curious about is why no one has posted or is interested in a USB hack similar to the Ritz one. A smartmedia reader, as some have pointed out, is much more expensive than a USB cable. I know that I would not spend 10$ on a single use camera, then spend an additional 30-50$ on parts to make it arguably equivalent to a 60$ cheapie digital.
"He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup
For $10, it would be nice if this could be used as a general purpose USB interface for other projects. (I'd RTFA, but it's pining for the fjords.)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Here's a mirror of the posting, courtesy of Worm Quartet
However, once you have a hacked camera it's a different story. Because it's digital you can take virtually free photos. The batteries in the Ritz version lasted me for about 300 photos and they're just standard AA, easy to change. Sure, it would be better if it had a picture display LCD but it's not like the lack of it makes the camera useless.
BTW I've read that a slightly more expensive version with an LCD is coming out in 2004.
Unfortunately, the camera mod could be tied into the DMCA, in which case, you would be considered a criminal.
I, personally, think that this is a neat hack (in the pure sense of the word), but I am sure that Walgreens is not charging $10 to own the camera, but more of a 'rental fee' for its use. Sort of like going to Blockbuster and thinking "Hey! A $5 movie! Cool!" and keeping it.
Walgreens probably won't get bent out of shape over a miniscule number of these leaving circulation (as the 'mainstream' folks don't have the inclination or abilities as the average /.er), but they might get upset about plans being put on the web...
P.S. Who modded the original poster (segment) a troll? I think it is a valid point, and isn't inflammatory...
Well, they could put up a sign at the store saying that by buying these cameras you are agreeing to return them when the memory gets full for picture processing. Then it would be a contract clause. As long as you have to see and read the contract before buying the camera you could be bound by it. (This would be different from 'shrinkwrap' licensing in that you would see the contract before money changed hands.)
Not that I've seen such signs...
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Let me ask if this is the future you want. Car dealers may not charge you $10 to own the cars, but more of an incentive for you to bring them in for "service." Since reverse engineering the internals of the car is now illegal, it would be forbidden to determine what kind of oil or fuel it uses. To publish any information you find about your tinkering could get you into big trouble. It could prevent *all* car manufacturers from making a profit and no incentive to sell cars.
I'm sure we are not confused about a rental agreement and Walgreen's cameras. But I do play the cd's I legally rented illegally on my Linux box with mplayer. Am I a criminal? I heard someone who made it possible for me to enjoy a movie in the privacy of my own home has been made a criminal just for that.
You see where this is going? We are allowing companies to artificially commoditize the market into exclusive goods. Its wasteful, harmful for the environment, stifles innovation, and destroys any sense of freedoms that may occur naturally.
I've seen at Best Buy (and I just recently read a review about it, but I don't remember the site) a 64MB MP3 player/1.3 MP digital camera that plugs right into a USB port that sells for $99. It's white and orange.
Which it isn't. The "only" copyrighted materials here are the individual's photos, and the individual, as the copyright holder, has a perfect right to authorize him or herself to access those photos.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
What do you do when one of your drunk guests breaks it or your uncle Fred decides to take that nice Canon A60 home after the wedding? I'll stick with the $5 disposable film camera.
Look! A 3 year old FAQ answer!
Shouldn't a techy/geeky/nerdy website have more up to date policies? Oh, well, just a thought.
----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
That was never the case. A contract just has to be agreed to by both parties. A signature is the easiest, long-lasting, method of noting that agreement. A verbal contract is just as valid, but you have to have impartial witnesses to prove both sides agreed. (A good video camera should be fine, if you can be relatively sure it has not been tampered with.)
There are specific contracts that the government requires a signature for ('real property', meaning land, is usually one...), but as a general rule a signature is not required. Just acknowledgment and agreement.
(IANAL, but I did take Business Law, which spent most of the course covering this.)
'Sensible' is a curse word.
We need some sort of way of putting the archive on bit torrent and then making it easily viewable. That is, someone saves the pertinent pages into a zip file, puts the zip up on bit torrent, and when you click the url, Moz or whatever your browser be unzips it to a temp dir, and opens up the index.html ... VIOLA! that'd be slick as snot.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
The obvious solution to this (for the company) is something they used to do with the film disposables -- charge for processing up front. Include the price of the "processing" (which amounts to downloading the pics and printing them for an unreasonably inflated price) in the price of the camera, and then just say "processing included". The only reason they don't do this is because they found it was more profitable to mislead consumers into thinking the product was cheaper than it was.
I have no sympathy for companies. They tried to mislead consumers and a bunch of geeks called them up on it. Justice has been served.