Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Warspying in San Francisco

Posted by michael on from the peeping-thomas dept.

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."

18 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting. by Scott+Lockwood · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The most fascinating part of this article to me - was the fact that it's NOT a violation of the wire tap act. It seems video isn't considered snooping. Talk about technology out pacing legislation. I wonder how long before we have one of those sites devoted to "hidden camera" porn? Oh, wait...

    --
    But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
    1. Re:Interesting. by sckeener · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually it's been covered in the media. There is one story of a man who setup video cameras all over the house and then sold it. The attic was accessible from the outside, so he'd climb up and swap the tapes in a VCR. There wasn't any sound only video so the most he could be charged with is stealing electricity

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    2. Re:Interesting. by Skorgu · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It really has very little to do with legistlative sloth. The problem with legislating against this sort of thing is that its so tangled up in the issue of surveillance cameras. If you make videotaping an unknowing or unwilling person in a "public place" illegal, all surveillance cameras are then illegal. The problem is that drawing the line between useful surveillance and spying is so difficult. In this case, the transmissions being intercepted are not encrypted or even hidden. No attempt to keep them private has been made, and the owners/operators have no expectation of privacy. IANAL, but I can't see any way to extend the laws to cover this without being draconian. One other point: voyeur-type hidden cameras are usually beaten in civil court if the voyeur charges money for the video; it may be legal to spy on others without their permission, but selling it is usually a no-no.

  2. Social stigma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "The problem is, if the cops take an interest in you while you're doing something like this, the only way to get out of the situation is to admit that you're a dork," says MWD. "I'd almost rather be taken back to the station."

    This is why we're losing jobs to India. Indians don't have to worry about looking like dorks because they're interested in science.

  3. Wireless Camera Detectors? by Milican · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone know if the wireless camera detectors they have at Radio Shack (still carry?) work? They were a small cigarette ligher sized detector. Didn't seem to me that it would work all that well...

    JOhn

    --
    Campaign for Liberty
  4. I call movie rights! by The+I+Shing · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This sounds like a good plot starter for a political thriller.

    A college student goes out to look at wireless cameras and witnesses a murder, which is later ruled a suicide by the coroner's office in a massive political coverup. He has the murder recorded on the hard drive of his notebook computer, and shortly after he hands a CD he burned with an MPEG of the murder over to his uncle, a police detective, his uncle is then found dead, another "suicide." Then the kid realizes they'll be coming after him next, and a merry chase ensues.

    Has this already been done?

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
  5. Or the fact by The+Tyro · · Score: 2, Interesting

    that they are driving around with a police scanner in their vehicle... that's against the law in some states too.

    Ironically, they'd be OK here in Florida... you can drive with a scanner in your vehicle here but only if you're a licensed HAM operator or newsguy.

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    1. Re:Or the fact by harrkev · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I should hope not. I carry this with me every day. It receives 100KHz to 1.3GHz, and can monitor nearly all analog voice modes. I doubt that this would be illegal in any state, and if it was, the ARRL would be all over them. An amateur radio operator is licensed by the feds. This trumps any state law. IANAL, and this is a gross simplification of the facts, but legal precedents have been set as far as having amateur radio tranceivers in a vehicle.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
  6. Re:I can't believe they aren't in jail yet... by Aardpig · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is no different than a voyer.

    First, it's voyeur, not voyer.

    Second, your comparison is fallacious. Sure, I have a right to be protected from people spying on me in my own home. However, if I plastered naked photos of myself all over the 'hood, then I think it reasonable to assume that I've waived this right. Same goes for wireless transmission; if I can receive the transmission in a public place, then those producing the transmission have effectively waived their right to privacy.

    In fact, we could take this one step further. If I picked up a broadcast from a security camera, which happened to be pointed at two people fucking on the office copying machine, the company might be liable for broadcasting obscene material.

    --
    Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
  7. The hairs on the back of my neck.... by boris_the_hacker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... just stood up all at once. The worst thing was that out of all my dvds, the one at the top of the pile was Enemy Of The State. Great film, although this story just make you wonder how many electronic eyes are watching you....

    --
    chris at darkrock dot co dot uk
    http colon slash slash www dot darkrock dot co dot uk
  8. Uhm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But MWD doesn't relish trying to explain that to the San Francisco Police Department. Even when he's not warviewing, he keeps a police scanner running in his car, to "keep an ear on the pulse on the city," and tonight it provides some comfort by not squawking out calls about strange men carrying alien-looking ray gun equipment, or driving slowly and suspiciously though the city's varied neighborhoods in an ominous black '64 Volvo.
    isn't it highly illegal to have a police radio scanner in a moving vehicle? I thought it was only legal to posess them if it was in a fixed location like your living room

    *oops*

  9. same as baby monitors by shlomo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is exactly what happens with your typicall baby monitor. People dont realize they are broadcasting their life to all their neighbors.
    In fact thats what happened to me, i bought a monitor, but its useless, since all the channels are being used by my neighbors.

    At least I have something to do if I'm ever bored.
    Its like a baby crying radio channel :)

    --
    sorry officer, left my sig in my other computer.
  10. Most bang for the buck by EastCoastLA · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Unless you are going to build your own hack it seems that for the less technically inclined of us cash will be king. To get in the game the article suggests the two best options. Any feedback on which one gives the most bang for the buck?

    ACN53292
    http://www.actiontvusa.com/ACN53292.ht ml

    and the

    Icom IC-R3
    http://www.texastowers.com/icr3.htm

  11. WTF? by Prince+Vegeta+SSJ4 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I won't admit I'm a dork to three or four cops, I would rather admit it to thousands of people in an interview and various discussions that follow.

    Logic anyone?

    or maybe he figures because he used is alias, he wont' be found out

  12. Re:I can't believe they aren't in jail yet... by kb1efz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Where is this right to privacy documented?

  13. Re:Broadcast privacy by theLOUDroom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    Yep. That used to be they way it was for all radio broadcasts. It was legal to build a reciever that could recieve anything (DC to daylight), and if you didn't want people listening, you had to encrypt/obfuscate the data.

    Then, some buttmunch decided that cellphones should transmit an unencrypted, analog signal, receiveable by any radioshack scanner. Instead of realizing that someone made a big mistake, the FCC just banned scanners that could receive cell frequencies.

    Of, course, it's still trivial to recieve cell frequencies, but now it's "illegal". And now that everyone is switching to digial anyways, the law is still in place and the precendent has been set. Why bother to design things properly when you can just buy a law?

    --
    Life is too short to proofread.
  14. Re:Broadcast privacy by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The previous law, the 1934 Communications Act, was a good balance. It was legal to listen to the radio, but illegal to disclose or profit from anything you intercepted.

  15. Cops with antenna? by garstka · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have a question that EEs or radio enthusiasts might consider banal...

    I have a RadioShack Pro-94 handheld scanner...I was under the impression that, because it is passive and not a transceiver, it's not detectable. Isn't that the case with their ICOM scanner as well? Maybe I misinterpreting the reason why they split when they saw the cop waving the antenna.

    Any RF experts out there? What's the deal?