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.
You realize that it's a HUD, not just a video camera, right? And, when the video camera is active, there's a light telling you so, right?
Of course, but what's easier and simultaneously more desirable for more people? A rule asking that the one or two people likely to wear Glass take them off, or asking all the people in the area to pay attention to the little light, if they're bothered by the idea of being recorded?
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
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).
"It doesn't interfere with radio signals themselves"
It causes intentional interference, which is illegal for a Part 15 device.
I don't know about that... by that interpretation, any RST packet sent over Wifi would be illegal.
This is the digital equivalent of saying "Hey You! Yeah, Google Glass with MAC ID XXXXYYYY! Get off my lawn!"
The rule for Part 15 devices (which includes Google Glasses) is that they must accept any signal interference and fail gracefully, and they must not cause interference with other signals using the spectrum.
It doesn't cause any interference with the transmissions, it just sends a message on the transport layer that the device should leave.
No, it doesn't interfere with other devices' radio signals. Those signals are untouched. It gives other devices a command that they choose to process and disconnect from the network. That's why it could be a loophole. The FCC statement regards jamming, noise, and analog kinds of interference. I don't think this falls into the FCC's traditional definitions of interference.
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!
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?
It is
(m) Harmful interference. Any emission, radiation or induction that endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with this chapter.
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/te...
It's pretty much exactly "repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service".
The device's secondary purpose is to violate the FCC licence it uses to operate. They even state "We take no responsibility for the trouble you get yourself into if you choose to deploy your Cyborg Unplug in this mode," because they know it's illegal. (it's primary advertised purpose is to block devices from your own network)
Easiest way to get around it would be to change the MAC address. You'd probably need to root your google glass though.
Nope, not grey zone. It falls in the "Otherwise interferes" category. Illegal no matter how you look at it.
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf
In short.....
An access point can terminate a connection or refuse to accept one.
A wireless client can terminate its own connection.
You can compete for bandwidth to or with an Access Point or other device on the same frequency to do your own communication (but doing so just to block another signal or communication is classified as jamming).
If you want to block Goggle Glass or Drones the Access Point must be the device that does it.
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.
Well, it could also be seen as hacking (of the device) or impersonation (of the wireless hub). If the device properly identifies itself as having nothing to do with the network when sending the disconnect request, then it would be comparable to merely a request. If not, then I see no reason we should encourage the elimination of a feature of our networks by eliminating the disconnect packet from all network code, just so a stupid jammer can work for a month while the code is eliminated.
In the case of a drone, I suspect the owner of the jammer will be considered responsible for any damage caused by booting the drone from the network, if any.
And yes, I realize that this is not a device that saturates the EM frequencies to jam a signal. But it has the same purpose and function of a jammer, of terminating the target's communications. And I think it is worse than a jammer, because it might end up deleting a feature of the internet.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
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.
Well, you better get used to the "idea of being recorded" because you are almost constantly being recorded when out and about: by surveillance cameras, smartphones, and wearables of all sorts. Your objections to Google Glass logically have nothing to do with being recorded, you just have a stick up your ass about Google Glass in particular. And you better get over it, because you don't have a legal leg to stand on if you don't like being recorded; your only option is to leave and hide somewhere.
Hope you realize that in modern countries, almost every single establishment is currently recording you on tape inside AND outside their establishments. That includes public transit, public streets of all decently-big cities, every single supermarket, theaters, yada yada...
Might want to also be fighting that one off.. ya know, where you know they are recording you - rather than a user that is probably not recording you at all.
(I do not own or use any device like Glass, for the record..)
because you don't have a legal leg to stand on
Why would that be the first thing that comes to mind? I'm not planning on suing someone for recording me. That would be pointless. Just because I have to put up with something to take part in society doesn't mean that I have to like it (or that I wouldn't appreciate places that share my viewpoint on the matter).
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Cell phones aren't for calling the cops. They're for getting video of the cops when they show up.
Roadside assistance, I will grant you, is an appropriate use for cell phones. I think the notion that police are there to protect you or me is somewhat archaic. Did you know that thousands of silencers were part of the DoD giveaway program to metropolitan police departments? Forget about the BearCat armored assault vehicles and other paramilitary hardware. Give me one good reason why any member of any police department would need a silencer. Those are tools for assassins, not for anyone who means to "serve and protect". There's not one possible legal use for a silencer by a member of any police department, yet they are sought out by police departments nationwide, along with .50-cal machine guns, very high-end sniper rifles, tanks and other armored vehicles. There was a news story today of a police force in a small Michigan town with one full-time officer requesting and being given 13 assault weapons with grenade launchers. I'll bet there was some police chief somewhere in the US that heard someone talking about a dub-step gun in Saints Row IV that makes people float up in the air before killing them and immediately put in a requisition to DoD.
Who the fuck are they protecting? And from whom?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Oh, no, it's not "inevitable" at all. There are plenty of totalitarian places around the world where people have lost the right to take pictures; it goes right along with losing the right to free speech. We need to fight that the same doesn't happen here.
I think the notion that police are there to protect you or me is somewhat archaic.
I've read your posts before so I know I'm tilting at windmills by trying to engage rationally. But you do know that, Ferguson aside, there are more than 4,000 police/sheriff agencies across the US and that day-in, day-out, 99% of what they do is actually protecting/helping people? Somebody has to respond to 911 calls, and defuse domestic violence incidents. Somebody has to take drunk drivers off the road. Somebody has to investigate rapes, assaults and violent crimes. Those people are the police.
I know a number of police officers personally. Pretty much all of them are nice socially, although I can tell that a few of them like their job a little too much and I wouldn't want to meet them on the wrong side of "at work." And, like many other middle-class people, all my early (pre-college graduation) interactions with police were about underage drinking when I thought to myself, "boy, these guys could be doing something more valuable somewhere else."
But ultimately the police in the US do an unpopular job - by and large - very well, and pretty much all of them that I have met do really care about making the public safer. There are bad cops - maybe the nature of giving people authority makes there be a few more bad cops than abusers of any other random job - but they are the minority by far. I know it's fun and cool to act like every cop is the Bad Lieutenant or Judge Dredd or something, but it's ignorant and disrespectful to say that thinking police are there to help you is "archaic."
OK, karma seppuku committed. Mod away.
"95% of all Slashdot
This is arguably a violation of 47 U.S.C. Section 333 (2012), prohibiting willful or malicious interference with radio communications.
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.
The problem is they jumped the shark. They went too far and now even law abiding citizens are starting to see them as the enemy. Parents now tell their kids to avoid the cops if they get lost and go find someone with kids instead. They have forgotten their actual purpose. Busting heads, shooting, punishment and locking people up are supposed to be unfortunate necessities for protecting and serving, but too many enjoy that too much and protecting and serving have become the unfortunate necessity.
That's why decades ago, teens caught with beer got to watch the cop pour the beer out but today they go to jail (possibly after being tazed). Decades ago, a losty child got taken home to a relieved parent and that was the end of it. Now, there are inevitable complications where people who either have no kids or could afford a full time nanny (or, perhaps, just a really strong double standard) sit in judgement over them and threaten to steal their kids away.
I have no doubt there are plenty of cops that are well meaning out there but by turning a blind eye to the bad apples, they become one of them.
For a recent example, a bunch of cops did a no-knock raid on a home recently based on the word of a known criminal. They raided the home and in the process tossed a flash-bang into a crib causing the child life threatening injuried. They claim they didn't know there were children in the house but they had to move toys meant for small children out of the way in the yard before executing the raid. Meanwhile, their information was bad. It turns out the target of their raid doesn't live there after-all.
Mistakes happen, you might say. But apparently apologies DON'T happen. Nor does paying the ruinous medical bills. They have shown not a single sign of remorse. What am I to think other than that the whole department is a pack of baby burning thugs? Why should I trust them? Why should I respect them? Why should I believe they are here to 'protect and serve'?
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.