Slashdot Mirror
Device Boots Drones, Google Glass Off Wi-Fi
An anonymous reader writes: Amid the backlash against spy-eye drones as well as wearable cameras like Google Glass, one company is building a device to fight back. The Cyborg Unplug actively scans for drones or Google Glass on a local wireless network and blocks their traffic. They're billing it as an "anti-surveillance system" and marketing it toward businesses, restaurants, and schools. They take pains to note that it's not a jammer, instead sending copies of a de-authentication packet usually sent by a router when it disconnects a device. The device can, however, force devices to disconnect from any network, which they warn may be illegal in some places.
No different to someone saying to the device user, "Get off the network." The device is welcome to ignore the request.
And, following a patch, probably will.
Still, the best way to start to deal with Google Glass is to ostracize the users and ban them from all private establishments. In public streets, simply hold a cameraphone in front of them continually.
Perhaps this device could actually fall through some legal loopholes?
It doesn't interfere with radio signals themselves (per FCC). It doesn't interfere with legally protected phone communications (also FCC). It takes advantage of wireless standards that have been adopted, but that themselves have little legal protection.
All it's doing is sending instructions that devices happen to listen to and obey. Bad on the hardware protocols that they allow any equipment to issue these unverified types of commands?
So a guy goes out in a field with a recreational drone, connected to his laptop by his very own wifi. Someone else decides they doesn't like drones, and punts the drone off the network (and effectively keeps it from reconnecting). It's now no longer under manual control.
Yes a drone should have enough automatic control to keep it from cratering when that happens, but you never know. If the drone falls out of the sky and brains some little kid, or keeps going in a straight line and crashes into a building, whoever severed that manual control is going to share some responsibility (at least moral responsibility).
If I was going to implement something like this I would try the following:
Request for DHCP address detected:
is it from a prohibited MAC address range?
Give a bogus Gateway address (packets from the device are lost)
Else give legitimate address
I fail to see how this will prevent the device from recording.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
People can choose to allow or deny access to people and their devices at will.
Glassholes are gonna find that they are as welcomed as smokers in many places.
Ahh... but they'll be able to stand closer to the air intake vents :D
In other news disconnected WIFI controled drones start falling from the sky
So you care about cameras out in the open you can see.
What about all those security cameras all over the place? That dash cams people put in their cars? The traffic cameras local councils use? The red light/speed cameras?
Not to mention, everyone already has a camera on the phone in their pocket. Not to mention all those people who walk about texting. They may not be texting
THEY MIGHT BE SECRETLY VIDEO TAPING YOU AND INVADING YOUR PRIVACY IN PUBLIC. Quick, grab every phone you see and smash it!
"It's absurd that you talk about "responsibility", but then hold responsible everybody but the person who actually was irresponsible."
I'm not sure you read my post very well. "Shares some responsibility" is not the same as "holds all responsibility", and that's a terrible analogy. It's closer to interrupting the signal of a model plane, and those are entirely legal and socially acceptable. A pilot generally shouldn't fly it somewhere dangerous, but if you kill that signal, you are making a flying object a lot more unpredictable than if it was under user control.
Besides, beyond the danger, there's just the property damage aspect if it gets lost or goes down in trees or a lake. Is it okay to run down the beach cutting peoples' kite strings, just because hey, they can snap by themselves in a heavy wind?
Video is stored locally.
All it's going to do is alert the user that something might be going on that is worth recording, so start recording now!
Privacy in public? Are you sure?
>Deauth frames are unencrypted management frames.
Deauth frames are unauthenticated management frames.
There. Fixed that for you.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
... on "your WiFi with no legal problems.
A person can do that right now by disallowing people to ride oh "their" WiFi, now.
One of the places I go to offers "free WiFi." You have to get today's password from them and it's an Internet cafe where they casually monitor the network.
As for doing anything to other people's WiFi? Strictly illegal.
People discussing cell phone interruption are missing the design point. It's a "gett off my network," not a radio frequency jammer.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
An 802.11-compliant device that receives a deauthentication message is required to terminate its connection to the base station. As such, if you transmit a deauth, you didn't just "express an idea", you gave a command to a device that's required to obey it. It's like saying "I'm not responsible for the damage caused by hitting the self-destruct button; whoever wired the button to the explosives is". When YOUR actions cause something to happen that wouldn't have happened if you didn't do anything, then YOU are completely at fault.
Whoever selected wifi is negligent, but that doesn't fully absolve the deauthenticator of responsibility.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
If you're complaining about Google Glass being too invasive, you are a privacy advocate.
If you're complaining about Google Glass being too invasive on Facebook, you're either a moron or a hypocrite.
Seriously, I've noticed a high correlation between people who will tell you that Google Glass is a terrible invasion of their privacy and anyone who wears Google Glass should be ostracized and or beaten to death, and people who well tell you that "it's the Internet stupid, there's no more privacy, so just get over it, princess".
The outrage over Google Glass is an ephemeral cultural phenomenon that will go away when Google Glass (or it's competitors) are actually affordable consumer products. If you're concerned enough about Google Glass to take aggressive actions against users of Google Glass, then you better be mad enough about ubiquitous surveillance to be aggressive about it, too.
God, hipsters are obnoxious, awful human beings.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Ok so the google glass or what ever doesn't connect to your local wifi.... Um and the google glass wearer with their paired LTE phone in their pocket cares why exactly????
And as for a drone connecting to your wifi - i'm assuming we are looking at war-driving (flying I suppose) drones?
Pointless devices that is probably illegal looking for a situation that doesn't exist.
Security cameras, at least in the EU, are government by laws derived from fairly strict Data Protection directives. They are static, and tend to be owned and controlled by a private establishment, i.e. cannot be used to follow people around. They are there for a particular purpose and tend to be easily identifiable. In any case, there will be warnings about their presence.
Dash cams are the most obnoxious of everything on your list, but they point toward the road, and the owners of vehicles are already aware that they're trackable by the big fucking registration number on the front and back. No pedestrian signs an agreement to be identifiable or trackable in public. No pedestrian has immediate responsibility for a statistically highly dangerous, fast-moving chunk of metal, so there is no reason why they may need to be identified. Do dash cams sometimes take photos involving pedestrians? Sure, just as sometimes people are found in the backgrounds of photos, but nobody has identified that as a problem.
Traffic cameras are in stationary, well-indicated positions, again pointing at the road. They are governed by data protection law. They have a specific, well-known purpose.
Red light cameras have an extremely specific, well-known purpose, and are very clear to see.
Everyone hates speed cameras, but same applies.
Having a camera is not the same thing as pointing a camera at someone. Having a gun is not the same thing as pointing a gun at someone.
Texting does not involve the phone being held in the same position as taking photos. Have you ever even use a mobile telephone?
Your strawman about violent response is noted, and laughed at.
Those cams are just as much a concern. However, it is less likely to end up on the internet but the chance is still there and there is little ghat can be done.
However, with glass and drones, we can do somrthing. So why shouldn't we do something when we can?
It is a security flaw, and it's been recognized as such for a very long time. The IEEE devised 802.11w, which protects most management frames after association and authentication when the connection is encrypted. This includes deauth frames. However, it's not often enabled.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
If we assume it's relying on MAC matching, then all one has to do is reprogram a different MAC into the device... Or run a bit of software that changes the MAC on the fly...
And it still doesn't take into account that the drones can use 3G/4G connections, or just an onboard DVR. Same deal with someone wanting to record in the establishment - they can have a camera in a button-style lens with a local DVR, or stream it out over a 3G/4G phone connection...
Don't forget about these
What about all those security cameras all over the place?
I have mixed feelings about security cameras. Yes the companies have a right to protect themselves from theft, people "slipping" on the sidewalk in front and such. HOWEVER, more and more I am seeing companies replacing their "in-house" security system (often with rigid "who can view" policies) with a web-based one from some central business (where anyone with a password can login to the system). If the NSA hasn't already been given a free connection you know they have illegally hacked their way in (for the nation's children's security, or course). AND the really annoying part is I can't seem to convince our head IT guy that the company has just plugged our section of street into the national snooping network.
That dash cams people put in their cars?
I actually don't mind dash cams, yes they do catch pedestrians in the background, but their primary purpose is to protect the driver from crooked police and accident causing insurance scammers. I think they are well worth the risk.
The traffic cameras local councils use?
I don't know enough about these to know what the data retention policies are and who gets access to the video.
The red light/speed cameras?
I detest red light/speed cameras. Not only because they can be used to track people, but because they are used by greedy city governments solely to produce revenue. They have been proven multiple times to INCREASE the risk of accidents at intersections where they are installed.
You didn't mention the big evil, license plate cameras/scanners. At least red light cameras have a sign telling you they are at a particular intersection (required by law in my state) while the police keep license plate scanners as hidden as possible, even to the point of perjury in court. I wish the police chief and mayor in every jurisdiction where these are found was thrown in prison for a very long time.
This is arguably a violation of 47 U.S.C. Section 333 (2012), prohibiting willful or malicious interference with radio communications.
People can choose to allow or deny access to people and their devices at will.
Glassholes are gonna find that they are as welcomed as smokers in many places.
You fail to understand the power of Google.
802.11w adds security to management frames: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... ...which prevents this sort of silliness. You can't spoof deauth frames from other stations now, unless the WiFi network happens to be running on an older device.
Before 802.11w, you could do a passive scan, collect target MAC addresses, and then spoof deauth frames all day long, I know people used to do this at conferences or other crowded events.
And why was this stopped? Because its a form of malicious hacking.
That makes more sense, thanks. I mean, what's so special about booting from the network, why does it have to be wifi, and why do you need a special device?
Nah, let's say you walk out to the park with a loaded revolver. You're out there, tossing it over and over again into the air. Someone throws a rock at it, it goes off, shoots someone. Is the rock thrower the only one liable? Or am I liable for a damned air hazard?
That's a DoS, no more, no less. I don't see how selecting drones or google glasses makes it different ?
If you don't want drones or google glasses on your network, configure your router not to accept them.
Someone created a device which *has* to engage in active surveillance to force a device which may or may not be engaged in surveillance off it's currently connected network.
I wonder if the device can be configured to kick itself off the network? Someone could bring a 2nd one in, plug it up, and let it actively scan for the 1st device then keep kicking it off.
There's a huge honking difference between someone taking a casual photo or video in public (and remember, you are out in public, not private), and following you around all day. The latter could be legally be construed as harassment, or possibly even assault, among other things.
Intent is the key thing, here. If they're all over your shit, then yes they're overstepping their bounds and harassing you. OTOH if they're simply wearing google glass at the same cafe you're sitting in, you've no right to shut them down, you're judging them guilty until proven innocent, which infringes on their rights. It's a free country, what right have to you to deny someone else to take a video of their environment when when all concerned are out in a public place? In a sense, their eyes and brain are already doing the same thing, it's why we have eye-witnesses testify in crimes. I've never yet heard a criminal defense say, "that witness had no right to observe and remember my client's actions in public, he didn't give them permission".
And how can you defend the citizen's recording of police if you're going to shut down citizens who record in public?
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
What about all those security cameras all over the place? That dash cams people put in their cars? The traffic cameras local councils use? The red light/speed cameras?
Happy, happy, ambivalent and ambivalent respectively. And distinctly unhappy about the prospect of someone talking to me whilst wearing a camera on their face. Not all camera contexts are equal.