Warspying in San Francisco

hak_fan writes "SecurityFocus has a story on a group of radio hobbiests in San Francisco who occasionally go out warspying for wireless cameras in the 2.4GHz band, using some customized equipment. Their latest expedition turned up some interesting finds."

Comments

Hmmmm

[djrogers]

From the ./ blurb

Their latest expedition turned up some interesting finds.

and from the story

But just what are the video sniffers picking up? If the San Francisco expedition late last week is any indication, the answer is, not all that much.

Methinks the reality high-tech peeping tom world is probably quite a bit less sexy than some people's fantasies of it....

Broadcast privacy

[nuggz]

When you broadcast something, you shouldn't expect it to remain private.

If you want it to remain private, do something.
Encrypt it, or don't send it out to everybody.

Re:Interesting.

[Secrity]

IANAL It wouldn't be illegal to receive this stuff no matter what the format. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy for transmissions in this band (it is not even intended for communications use). One really cool thing about this band is that no license is required to operate in the band and there are tons of perfectly good 500 to 1000 watt 2.4 MHz magnetrons with power supplies discarded every year -- free for the taking from dumpsters and the sides of residential streets. You can even buy a new 2.4 MHz magnetron with power supply for almost nothing.

Re:I can't believe they aren't in jail yet...

[lxs]

Nobody has a right to sniff like that.

If you don't want people sniffing you, you shouldn't stink up the place.
This is equivalent to communicating with your neighbours by shouting out of the window and then complaining that people are listening to what you say.
As another poster pointed out, if you're broadcasting, you shouldn't expect privacy. If you're sold a wireless system as a private link, then the people to complain to are the sellers of the hardware for false advertising.

"warviewing"?

[SuperBanana]

MWD first went warspying (he prefers the neutral term "warviewing")

What the hell is this crap? It's NOT neutral. I can see it now...

Reporter: "So Mr. Car Thief..."
Thief: "Please. I prefer the term Vehicle Posession Transferal Agent".

You ARE spying. You're looking where you shouldn't; that's spying, just like eavesdropping on 802.11b is spying; you know your victims are probably not expecting you to be looking, and you know it's wrong. If your neighbor has a 8-foot high shrub, and you stick your head through it to see what's going on in his yard, that's considered intrusive by most of the world unless you know 'em pretty well. It's not considered "viewing". If you put a mirror over the top of the stall in the bathroom to look at the guy next to you, that's spying. Not "viewing".

Why do I get the image of Comic Book Guy reading about MWD? Even the "please, call me..." crap is the same.

Re:"warviewing"?

[thentil]

It is *not* spying. In both your bathroom example and neighbor-shrub example, the bathroom wall and shrub are erected to prevent viewing; thus, circumventing that could be 'spying'. Walking or driving around picking up unencrypted, broadcasted video signals is not circumventing anything. If they had been doing decryption, then it could be spying; the way it is, they're merely sightseeing. Don't want people admiring the architecture of your house, or your landscaping skills? Erect a wall/shrubbery. Don't want people viewing your nanny-cam? Encrypt the signal. Otherwise, you're putting that signal out there for sightseers.

Re:Ugh.

[Papa Legba]

You sir, have destroyed a peice of my faith in humanity that I was unaware that I had. This revelation is wrong on so many levels. I weep for the humanity of it all.