Slashdot Mirror


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."

46 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. Ugh. by DarkHelmet · · Score: 4, Funny
    It's stories like this that make me never want to go naked on webcam ever ever again.

    Not that you slashdotters would want to know such a thing.

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    1. Re:Ugh. by El+Torico · · Score: 5, Funny

      The risk of seeing naked slashdotters makes me never want to go warspying.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    2. Re:Ugh. by B'Trey · · Score: 4, Funny

      This kind doesn't count!

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    3. Re:Ugh. by pyr0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      You mean like this guy? And no, it's not goatse or tubgirl, although possibly just as disturbing because the guy is an idiot!

    4. Re:Ugh. by Papa+Legba · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Papa Legba come and open the gate
    5. Re:Ugh. by digitalsushi · · Score: 4, Funny

      See, now, I'd go in the other direction. Let's say I found an office broadcasting with an X10 camera that was monitoring an empty executives's office.

      I'd grab some footage, go home, set up my place to look the same way, invite some interesting people over, do some interesting things, and then go back to outside the office, and broadcast MY signal at 10 times the power, overriding the original one and have my image be the one that gets recorded.

      I'd know it works when I read about it in the papers the next day...

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
  2. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Umm, that was just a Law & Order on the other night. Law & Order != Real Life. Step outside and take a deep breath of fresh air dude.

    3. 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.

    4. Re:Interesting. by Secrity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Interesting. by mazarin5 · · Score: 3, Informative

      If I remember correctly, he owned consecutive properties and rented out one to his friends. There was sound, but since it was his house/equipment it was illegal. They did end up busting him, but it was for secretly recording the woman and her daughter changing at his house when they were invited over to use the hot tub. Because the girl was 15, they got him for kiddie porn.

      --
      Fnord.
  3. Interesting Finds? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they found some interesting finds, they left them out of the article. They found exactally what you would think they would find... cameras pointed at places in offices... not the hot lesbian orgy that you would hope for. Besides, isnt this a dupe?

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  4. "hobbiests"? by Cyclopedian · · Score: 3, Funny

    I didn't know the letter 'y' was taking a break today.

    Where, oh where have all the *hobbyists* gone?

    -Cyc

    1. Re:"hobbiests"? by MrRTFM · · Score: 3, Funny

      no, its actually hobbitses - and quite frankly a blantant plug for ROTK in the oscars :)

      --
      You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
    2. Re:"hobbiests"? by svallarian · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, the letter
      "Y"
      was off today, making a suprise appearance on sesame street.

      So look out if the number "12" is missing from any posts today too.

      Steven V.

      --
      I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
  5. Hmmmm by djrogers · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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....
    --
    Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
  6. Broadcast privacy by nuggz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. 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.
  7. interesting finds alright... by I+Be+Hatin' · · Score: 5, Funny
    Their latest expedition turned up some interesting finds.

    From the article:

    A few other cameras pop up, but nothing exciting -- until the financial district, where on the same block as the office cam, MWD's receiver picks up the very freeway camera that marked the start of the expedition. The camera is more than two miles away, while most wireless video cameras have trouble reaching the curb. The appearance of the signal so far from its source energizes the team. "That's definitely the catch of the night there," says MWD.

    So the "catch of the night" is a freeway camera. Woo-hoo! Oh well, at least now I know there are bigger dorks than myself.

    --
    I know god exists. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
  8. 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.

  9. 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

    1. Re:Wireless Camera Detectors? by KitFox · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, they actually DO 'technically' work... however, you have to either be VERY close (1 foot or less) from the source of the transmission, or you need to be ready to see it going off constantly due to cordless phones if you set it too sensitive. (Says the guy who worked for Radio Shack for a while). Whenever we saw one of those leave the store, we knew it would be back in a day or two. Think about it... It basically detects all 'strong' radio frequencies in a number of ranges, but it is NOT directional. SOOooo, if you want to sweep it over your body to see if somebody has wired a bug into your clothes, shoes, or pen, it's good to go, however, for anything else, it's not that great. For the average person, it's useless. That is, unless you like saying "Look! This thing beeps just before my cordless phone rings!".

      --

      @Whee

  10. 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.
    1. Re:I call movie rights! by The+I+Shing · · Score: 4, Funny

      But my movie will have a talking pie.

      --
      You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
  11. Quote of the Day by sysadmn · · Score: 4, Funny
    This has got to be the quote of the day:
    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."
    --
    Envy my 5 digit Slashdot User ID!
    1. Re:Quote of the Day by El · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have a simular situation. "Honey, are you surfing slashdot again?" "Uh, no... I'm just downloading porn!"

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  12. Massive White Dude? by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't know what's funnier -- the fact that the warspying guy's name was "Massive White Dude" (or "MWD" for short), or the fact that the reporter misspelled it as "WMD" in the second to last paragraph...

  13. Re:Maybe no lesbian orgies, but by plams · · Score: 3, Funny
    these are geeks we're talking about, not perverts
    what are YOU talking about? the words 'geek' and 'pervert' seems mutually inclusive to me.
  14. Dear Slashdot... by ShaggyZet · · Score: 4, Funny

    I never thought this would happen to me. I was warspying around Clevland and found myself in a low-rent part of town. I didn't want to stop for long, but I glanced at my equipment while stopped at a red light and saw the most beautiful girl in the world. She must have forgotten to turn off the camera, because the things she was doing.... Well, let's just say it was even more exciting than the goats.cx guy, or the thought of Natalie Portman with hot grits down her pants. I went right up to her place, and secured that camera for her by setting up a linux firewall. But the really good part is, I put in a backdoor for myself!

    1. Re:Dear Slashdot... by pboulang · · Score: 4, Funny
      Letter back from Penthouse editors:

      In the future, could you please not reference "goats.cx" and "put in a backdoor for myself" in the same paragraph? We are now busy trying to poke out our inner eyes.
      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

  15. Re:I can't believe they aren't in jail yet... by tr0llb4rt0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    feed the troll .... :-D

    rtfa gives you

    "This kind of snooping doesn't violate federal wiretap laws, which generally protect audio communication, but not video, says Joseph Metcalf, an assistant professor at the University of Oregon law school. Moreover, the law keeps it legal to monitor radio transmissions that aren't encrypted or scrambled in any way, unless they're in a band specifically protected by statute, like analog cell phone signals. "If a communication is readily accessible to the general public, that communication is not protected by the federal Wiretap Act," says Metcalf. "

    Basically if you don't encrypt it it's your fault that someone else can read the signal.

    --
    Worst .sig ever!
  16. Re:I can't believe they aren't in jail yet... by lxs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:Maybe no lesbian orgies, but by swb · · Score: 5, Funny

    With a little detective work, MWD will eventually discover that the signal is a directional transmission from the camera to a local TV station that features the feed on its website and in its nightly newscast.

    So really the trick is to override their feed during the nightly news with more provocative content. It might be amusing to be real subtle about it, such as periodically putting footage from the wrong season or another time of day, CGI-ing the skyline (burning buildings, missing buildings, buildings that aren't really there, etc), using a different city skyline, etc. Just putting the goatse guy on would be a little less interesting.

    Ideally you'd have a reachable PC generating the video, with the ability to remotely switch between the real camera's feed and your feed to keep 'em guessing.

    All the more ironic that "The Conversation" was filmed in SF.

  18. Re:I can't believe they aren't in jail yet... by eggoeater · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know this is a troll but.....
    If you're stupid enough to BROADCAST anything without encryption, then you're waving your right to privacy. There's plenty of cameras out there that don't use wireless. If you're worried about privacy, use those.
    What IS illegal is enforcing you're own "justice" with a large hunk of wood.
    --

  19. War prefix now means roaming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wardialing was coined after Matthew Broderick did that activity in the 1983 movie War Games. It was a little bit clever to mutate that into wardriving, but that took the prefix right up to the edge of Fonzie's ramp.

  20. 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*

  21. 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.
  22. "warviewing"? by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    1. Re:"warviewing"? by thentil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  23. 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

  24. Encrypted Wireless Video by WC+as+Kato · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is exactly the reason why I opted to use a hard wired camera for my home. Before I hooked up the camera, I search all over the place for an encrypted wireless camera. I could not find a single one, not even a high priced professional camera that James Bond would use. It certainly seems like this kind of product would exist. Anyone know of any encrypted wireless video cameras?

    --
    --- I'm Green Hornet's sidekick not Inspector Clouseau's!
    1. Re:Encrypted Wireless Video by BJH · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Panasonic KX-HCM170 can do encrypted video (40/128-bit WEP, but it's better than nothing).

    2. Re:Encrypted Wireless Video by macemoneta · · Score: 4, Informative

      The D-Link DCS-1000W is an Ethernet/802.11b wired/wireless camera than can use 128-bit WEP. It's only $200 at CompUSA (the lowest price I could find, even comparing mail order when I purchased it). It has an on-board web server and can even email/ftp date/time stamped images when motion or switch closure is detected (or time based). More here:

      http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=41

      If you'd like to use it as a time-lapse security camera, I have a script on Sourceforge:

      http://sourceforge.net/projects/dcs1000w

      --

      Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

  25. 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."
  26. Legal for licensed amateur radio operators by tweakt · · Score: 3, Informative
    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
    It depends on the state. However "in 1993 the FCC preempted all restrictive state and local laws and ruled (FCC PR 91-36) that it is legal for licensed amateur radio operators, who have a copy of their FCC license in their possession, to operate - anywhere in the USA - an amateur radio transceiver capable of receiving police and other emergency services frequencies in their vehicle." -- http://www.rarchams.org/scanlaw.htm