Slashdot Mirror


Proposed MAC Sniffing Dongle Intended To Help Recover Stolen Electronics

An anonymous reader writes to say that an Iowa City police officer is developing a new concept to help police find more stolen property. The Gazette has a short report that officer David Schwindt, inspired by a forensics class, is working on L8NT, a specialized wireless dongle to help police officers locate stolen electronics (any of them with wireless capabilities and a MAC address, at least) by scanning for MAC addresses associated with stolen goods. The idea is to have police scan as they drive for these MAC entries, and match them against a database. The article notes a few shortcomings in this concept, but does not point out an even bigger one: MAC addresses are usually mutable, anyhow, in a way that's not as obvious as an obscured serial number, and thieves could refine their business model by automating the change.

120 comments

  1. Tax dollars hard at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a waste of time

    1. Re: Tax dollars hard at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I predict the FCC will try to make MAC addresses immutable soon

    2. Re: Tax dollars hard at work by LordLimecat · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Not sure if you're aware, but white men are killed more often by police than black men, and while the proportion does not match the racial makeup of society it does match the rate of violent crime.

      The number is also absurdly low; something like 100-150 black men are shot per year by police, and that does not factor out those shootings which were justified. Given the media's propensity to report every shooting (as it drives a popular narrative), and given that there have only been 3-4 reported unarmed killings by police this year, I think its safe to say the number is under 20/ year for the country.

      To put that in perspective its substantially less than the number people who die falling off their roof each year (>40).

    3. Re: Tax dollars hard at work by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Heck, if you look at all the recent ones in the news, it is pretty amazing people still have this discussion:

      Freddy Grey in Ferguson: He wrestled for control of a policeman's firearm discharging two shots inside the car, tried to run away, was stopped by the policeman, then proceeded to rush a policeman holding a gun on him. This is not the model you want to hold up as police abuse, this is a thug who would have gotten shot if it was a citizen, or a police officer, if he was white black or yellow.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    4. Re: Tax dollars hard at work by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Wow, totally wrong name there, I feel stupid now :)

      Meant to list out Freddy Grey and Michael Brown, but put the wrong name with the one I wrote. Oops.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    5. Re: Tax dollars hard at work by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 1

      Right, that's the exact story the officer, Darren Wilson gave. And indeed, it was corroborated, by his girlfriend who wasn't even there. That's about all we know, because the case was not even allowed to go to trial. These are the kind of fundamental injustices people are upset about.

    6. Re: Tax dollars hard at work by rsmoody · · Score: 1

      Please provide your source for the officer's girlfriend corroborating the officer's story.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    7. Re: Tax dollars hard at work by John+Jorsett · · Score: 2

      Right, that's the exact story the officer, Darren Wilson gave. And indeed, it was corroborated, by his girlfriend who wasn't even there. That's about all we know, because the case was not even allowed to go to trial. These are the kind of fundamental injustices people are upset about.

      A forensic examination by the Obama Justice Department, an entity presumably not interested in covering up for a bad cop shooting an innocent black victim, found evidence consistent with Wilson's version of events. You don't have a trial when there's no evidence that a crime occurred.

    8. Re: Tax dollars hard at work by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Considering that the grand jury had testimony from numerous witnesses, you have to have a pretty slanted view to continue trying to see the events that way.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    9. Re: Tax dollars hard at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's worse than that. Macs aren't even unique.

      Mac translation is a real thing to avoid duplicates on a network.

    10. Re: Tax dollars hard at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a non-US person, I find it deeply concerning that you consider 100-150 people shot per year by police to be an absurdly low number. And that 3-4 unarmed killings is described as "only".

  2. Should work fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course you can change a MAC address. However, your average 90 IQ bag snatcher can't do that. As with much policing, this is aimed at the low hanging criminal fruit - which is OK, because I imagine petty crime is the majority of crime.

    If some master hacker wants to steal your laptop and hide it, they could - however they could just buy their own seeing as how anyone with the skills likely can just get a decent job that is more rewarding that pinching electronics.

    1. Re:Should work fine by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Of course you can change a MAC address. However, your average 90 IQ bag snatcher can't do that. As with much policing, this is aimed at the low hanging criminal fruit - which is OK, because I imagine petty crime is the majority of crime.

      And I'll believe that when actual statistics prove it. Until then, consider this another money pit at taxpayer expense.

      If some master hacker wants to steal your laptop and hide it, they could - however they could just buy their own seeing as how anyone with the skills likely can just get a decent job that is more rewarding that pinching electronics.

      If this were actually true, the world would be devoid of black hat hackers. After all, anyone with the skills...

    2. Re:Should work fine by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Criminals have already learned to power off phones they steal, remove the SIM and not connect it to their wifi until after it's been properly sanitized to get rid of "find my phone" features. Chances are if this happens the people who already do the wiping and unlocking will just add a MAC address randomization step.

      Of course the other option is find some nearby MAC addresses, register them to yourself and go and claim your "stolen" property.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Should work fine by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      Until then, consider this another money pit at taxpayer expense.

      Considering you can do all this stuff for free today, with Kismet and/or aircrack-ng stuff, with a cheap USB dongle . . . yes, it is a waste.

      Oh, FTF Link:

      L8NT's patent pending methodology strips the M.A.C. addresses from packet headers and compares them to the M.A.C. addresses of known stolen devices in its database.

      OK, so they want to become a patent troll.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:Should work fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But black hat hackers aren't usually the thieves grabbing phones and tablets from people as they walk down the street.

      Is this a perfect solution to crime? No. Might it help? Probably.

    5. Re:Should work fine by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Going out and physically taking a computer is very different than sitting behind a tor network and hacking. There are many black hat hackers who are averse to physical risk.

    6. Re:Should work fine by rhazz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It won't work for exactly the same reason. Your average laptop owner doesn't know their device's MAC address. Even if they knew how to get it, they probably don't have it written down. The article also indicates they are not after bag-snatching types. This would be more likely to be used if there was a home burglary where a device happened to be taken among other things.

    7. Re:Should work fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But black hat hackers aren't usually the thieves grabbing phones and tablets from people as they walk down the street.

      People of all ethnic backgrounds can engage in hat hacking you insensitive clod.

    8. Re:Should work fine by smartr · · Score: 2

      L8NT's patent pending methodology strips the M.A.C. addresses from packet headers and compares them to the M.A.C. addresses of known stolen devices in its database.

      OK, so they want to become a patent troll.

      It's a cop doing the patenting. I have no doubt he's excited and proud of his "invention". Let's think about this... Not every mom and pop burglary shop has decent IT staff, and they can get caught with said software. In fact, not every mid-sized business has decent IT staff that can make software like this. Furthermore, chances are the cops also don't have IT staff to make stuff (or use existing stuff) and then easily share it with other publicly funded IT staffs. It's almost like there's something of value to be had from dedicated developers and IT services while a large part of the computer illiterate world has yet to catch on.

    9. Re:Should work fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If some master hacker wants to steal your laptop and hide it, they could - however they could just buy their own seeing as how anyone with the skills likely can just get a decent job that is more rewarding that pinching electronics."

      Clearly, you haven't had to look for a job in a while. There are hundreds of thousands of skilled IT workers who are unable to find work.

    10. Re:Should work fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I predict the chances of him actually getting a patent for this approaches zero.

    11. Re:Should work fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if the criminal has an IQ of 150, most of the time it doesn't matter. Electronics are stolen to be flipped for cash. All this [Ctrl-Alt-Delete, Enter 15 digit code, reboot, flash the EEPROM, pray to the moon god for rain...], are you kidding me?

      QUICK. CASH!

      99% of crooks have no time or interest in elaborate sanitizing rituals. They fence the goods as quick as possible and then believe they are protected because they no longer have custody of the devices.

    12. Re:Should work fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe things have changed. But as I recall a Mac address change on a nic won't normally stick after reboot.

      An even easier work around would be to swap out the wireless card for a "clean" one. :)

    13. Re:Should work fine by Gr8Apes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's take this a step further - Apple added MAC address randomization to ios 8. Android can't be far behind, so what, exactly, is this going to do other than result in more home invasions on known false pretenses?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    14. Re:Should work fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Criminals have already learned to power off phones they steal, remove the SIM and not connect it to their wifi until after it's been properly sanitized to get rid of "find my phone" features.

      You might be surprised the number of times police are sent to help someone who's tracked their stolen cellphone to XY coordinates. Some criminals have wised up, sure, but the majority of phone thieves in my city appear to be idiots who'll take a stolen phone directly to their own home and start using it. That's not to say this MAC finder isn't a waste of time and money. The smart thief will indeed rewrite the MAC and get rid of the phone, which renders this dongle useless. The dumb thief is sitting in his apartment taking selfies, in which case a taxpayer-funded MAC finder is obviated by the rightful owner's lojack software. 9 times out of 10 the complainant can track the thief down on their own.

      This is just someone else out to make a buck using buzzwords and location tracking. Competent police organizations don't need this guy's snake oil.

    15. Re:Should work fine by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "patent pending methodology strips the M.A.C. addresses from packet headers and compares them to the M.A.C. addresses of known stolen devices in its database"

      Most of this is so obvious to anybody in IT that this should be immediately un-patentable.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    16. Re:Should work fine by TWX · · Score: 2

      I predict the chances of him actually getting a patent for this approaches zero.

      Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. The patent office has taken the approach that if they issue stupid or bogus patents, the courts will fix it. The courts have taken the attitude that if the patent office issued the patent, it must be good. That's why there have been so many high-profile problems with patent enforcement/infringement for things that are pretty damn obvious; neither entity is willing to assume the responsibility to protect us from predatory BS.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    17. Re:Should work fine by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Of course you can change a MAC address. However, your average 90 IQ bag snatcher can't do that.

      Of course they can. It doesn't take any special skill whatsoever, unless you count searching for, downloading, and installing a program a "special skill".

    18. Re:Should work fine by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Android can't be far behind

      I have been doing this on Android for a few years now.

    19. Re:Should work fine by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      This is automatic, meaning that all iphones running iOS 8 and up do this. So that's only a few million devices.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    20. Re:Should work fine by Holi · · Score: 1

      Hmm compare mac addresses broadcast from wireless device, compare to database of known stolen devices, profit? Not seeing anything novel here.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    21. Re: Should work fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least IMEIs are genuinely unique.

    22. Re:Should work fine by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Your average laptop owner doesn't know their device's MAC address.

      This should be done with cooperation from device manufacturers.. so the owner just has to pay a nominal fee and have registered their product or know the serial number, "theft reporting key", and model number, and the manufacturer looks up a Device ID and a Key, publishes a "device stolen" record.

      Ideally.... i'd like to see them have all devices broadcast an encrypted implant though when doing something else with the wireless. Basically a hash that can be submitted to a trusted clearinghouse for a definitive Stolen/Not-Stolen check.

      Also, if every manufacture could publish a URL with a daily list of digitally signed "Stolen device IDs" list, that every operating system will periodically download and submit to the hardware.

      If a device finds itself on the list, it should enter a "lockdown" mode, where many functions would be disabled. That cannot be cancelled without contacting the manufacturer with the "device recovered" password.

    23. Re:Should work fine by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      However mac address assignment is mostly random and only needs to be unique to that ip address and internal network. So you can have multiple devices with the same mac address and based upon the violent way law en-FORCE-ment responds, not really OK to start face planting people to the pavement and jumping on the backs and then kidnapping them and throwing them into a cell after sexually molesting them and then with a whoops tee hee and then letting them go. When arrest and the prosecutorial method become a far worse punishment than say a fine, you need to start rethinking the whole justice process.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    24. Re:Should work fine by gweihir · · Score: 1

      As soon as this becomes a factor in arrests, somebody will sell a tool to do it. This is a stunt, nothing more. It has no lasting positive effects. Well, maybe it can be used fro even more surveillance.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    25. Re: Should work fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. It's called an IMEI and many sane countries do this.

    26. Re:Should work fine by dave420 · · Score: 1

      MAC addresses are frequently written on the packaging that devices come in. Unless the thief steals that too, it could work.

    27. Re:Should work fine by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      However mac address assignment is mostly random

      Eh? I thought that at least major manufacturers had a MAC range assigned, and carried out their own internal processes between models and individual products to at least give a fighting chance of uniqueness.

      From Wikipedia, "The first three octets (in transmission order) identify the organization that issued the identifier and are known as the Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI).[5] The following three (MAC-48 and EUI-48) or five (EUI-64) octets are assigned by that organization in nearly any manner they please, subject to the constraint of uniqueness." So, very significantly non-random then.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    28. Re:Should work fine by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was going to go with that but apparently whilst it is fixed as far as the nic hardware is concerned some manufacturers are really slack and reused them and mac spoofing is easy and it appears even sensible. So random without knowing the source of the initial mac address.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    29. Re:Should work fine by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Car registration (license) plates are unique in the same sense then. My (legal) registration in the UK might match one form 70 years ago in Swaziland. But the system is designed to encourage uniqueness, even though it's not strictly necessary. (MACs only need to be unique on a particular segment.)

      One of the first bits of network troubleshooting I had to do was debugging an address conflict on HP-9800 series machines, which had a dip-switch set equivalent to a MAC on (I've forgotten the name of their network ; used stacked Centronics-like connectors ... HP-IB (Hewlett-Packard Interface Bus), now known as IEEE-488. 48 or 64 address bits sounds a bit better than 5 address bits.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    30. Re:Should work fine by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Let's take this a step further - Apple added MAC address randomization [appleinsider.com] to ios 8. Android can't be far behind, so what, exactly, is this going to do other than result in more home invasions on known false pretenses?

      I fail to see a downside for law enforcement.

  3. lets take this changeable token... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got a machine here (Genesi pegasos1 g3 power pc) that comes without a mac address in its ethernet hardware, you have to assign a mac to it before the network card starts working under the os of your choice.
    So, VERY mutable. Lets take this changeable item and pretend its a fixed entity to trace things by.

    1. Re:lets take this changeable token... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      An Idea; this technology is not that hard to do, lets test this against the addresses of the various "keeping kaos at bay types" to see if this fantastic law enforcement tool is ready for prime time?

    2. Re:lets take this changeable token... by cjjjer · · Score: 1

      Yeah but a criminal is going to go online and see what your computer is going for and then realize its value (how easy to fence) and throw it in the nearest dumpster.

  4. How many nerds at conferences by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 2

    Are going to get in trouble because they discussed dongle-sniffing?

  5. In search of probable cause by sinij · · Score: 2

    Since the use of dogs is getting push-back in courts, this is the new police invention to sidestep probable cause. Especially considering how easy it is to have a discrete device to create on-demand red flag.

    1. Re:In search of probable cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially considering how easy it is to have a discrete device to create on-demand red flag.

      I believe this is the device you are describing.

    2. Re:In search of probable cause by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Lol - the digital equivalent of tossing a tennis ball at your car to get the drug dog to "hit" on it.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  6. Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG how innovative!

  7. Most thieves are dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    While it is trivial for a well-informed thief to change their business model by swapping their mac address, you have to remember that most thieves have no idea what a mac address is. Even thieves in the business of stealing iPhones may not read slashdot, shocking as that may be to believe.

    Criminals regularly get caught every day because they left fingerprints behind, despite the fact that we've known for something like a century that the cops will try to track you by your fingerprints so you should wear gloves or otherwise obscure your fingerprints if you are going to touch anything at a crime scene.

    Criminals regularly get caught every day because their faces are visible on security cameras, despite everyone having seen news reports, crime dramas, etc that let you know that there are a lot of security cameras in the world and cops will use them to track who was at a crime scene; lots of people don't bother to wear a mask or disable security cams or delete the video.

    So, cops can and should use tools to catch criminals, even if Moriarty can avoid those tools, because they'll catch a lot of the non-masterminds out there, and even the serious well-informed criminal might screw up on occasion.

    1. Re:Most thieves are dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      For every thief that gets their face shown on a camera, there are a lot more who know enough to wear a hoodie.

      Even the meth-head looking to snatch a phone knows enough to stuff the device in a pouch made of tinfoil, wait a few days so the device runs out of battery, then takes it apart and parts it out (or sells it to a fence for a rock, and the fence does that.)
          Same with bike thieves -- they know frames have serial numbers that are recorded, but the latest Shimano shifting set doesn't, and can be tossed on eBay for about 90% new with nobody being the wiser.

      I see a few issues with a MAC sniffing device:

      1: There isn't a database of stolen MACs as there is with IMEIs.

      2: MACs can collide or be reused. There are a lot of machines out there that might have a different MAC because the software is license-locked to that ID, and the Ethernet card got toasted, of the machine was P2V-ed to save space.

      3: If it compares MACs, it can be used to log where MACs go, which is another tracking mechanism. Not good.

      Because there isn't an infrastructure for logging stolen MACs, nor there should be one, this is a pointless device.

  8. Just another way to track people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For this to work wouldn't it assume that wireless devices are registered with some authority by the 'legal' owner of the device? Sounds like just another way for police and government agencies to track citizens to me.

    1. Re:Just another way to track people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but you're one of the paranoid, antisocial, slashderpsters. This place is as bad as any conspiracy blog. If everyone was as damaged as your kind, we couldn't have a civilization at all.

    2. Re:Just another way to track people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cop (or shill-for-cops), please leave.

  9. Won't catch the thieves, just the suckers by clifwlkr · · Score: 1

    I just had a friend who had their house broken into, and the person who bought their laptop actually contacted them after realizing it was stolen. They had bought it at a gas station from a guy 'selling his stuff to get gas money'. Yeah, the guy should have realized this was a scam. So basically the guys who stole it probably never even turn the thing on. They just sell it for cash and get out of dodge. You will just find a bunch of suckers who couldn't turn down a good deal, and what kind of prosecution rate do we have on those? The thief already go his money, so no deterrent there. Never mind the obvious fact you can change those, but the thief won't bother as he is just going to sell it. So again, for all of this effort exactly what is going to be accomplished?

    1. Re:Won't catch the thieves, just the suckers by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Even if they start reliably "catching the suckers" it may reduce the demand for the goods in the first place. The market for stolen phones dropped once the networks started blacklisting them. Sure savvy theives will still export them... or whatever... but getting them to Nigeria to sell them for $50 is beyond the average purse snatcher's level. Simpler to steal something else... like your laptop.

      So basically the guys who stole it probably never even turn the thing on.

      That laptop probably not. But do you think the laptop the thief actually uses himself to surf for porn was purchased legally?

      So again, for all of this effort exactly what is going to be accomplished

      A bunch of people get their stolen electronics back. Awareness is raised about the odds of getting caught using stolen laptops etc. Some actual thieves get caught and prosecuted. Other crimes will be exposed as they investigate stolen laptops. Other stolen goods, stolen weapons, etc, etc.

      The real downside of this, is whether they'll start using it to track people; a database of mac addresses and sightings... with enough surveillance stations becomes an effective surveillance network, able to track individual movement and patterns.

    2. Re:Won't catch the thieves, just the suckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But do you think the laptop the thief actually uses himself to surf for porn was purchased legally?"
      any self respecting porn connoisseur uses a hard wired high bandwidth connection... on a stolen desktop and high def screen.

      money would be better spent making users aware of encrypting their devices but then how would police steal their info

    3. Re:Won't catch the thieves, just the suckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What it boils down to is a decision we have to make:

      At the cost of a few laptops, do we give LEOs and advertisers the right and ability to track MAC addresses at all times, create a registry of all devices, keep a 24/7/365 location of them, just as we do with any cellular device that is on?

      The sad thing is that say this does happen -- a laptop MAC becomes just like an IMEI, where it is stuffed a database. This will not increase security. Why?

      1: Laptop thief grabs laptop, powers it down, stuffs it into tinfoil pouch.

      2: A day to a week later, the laptop is disassembled. The SSD, RAM (if not soldered in), or other components get put on eBay.

      3: Second tier components that can't easily be sold as a commodity like the display and keyboard get driven when the thief visits a neighboring state and dropped off at a swap meet, or with a "friend" who pays $25 for the carcass, breaks up the second tier parts (keyboard, speaker, LCD) into stuff salable on the local Craigslist.

      Even more pathetic? We have a tracking system in place. My laptop has a BIOS option that when selected, enables LoJack, and ensures that will be present no matter if the BIOS is reflashed or the NVRAM is reset. A reinstall of Windows reinstalls LoJack and gives them IP and location info 24/7. Thieves are already aware of this and know that they just need to pull the battery (or let it run out), then either sell the laptop to a schmuck, or part it out.

      Parting a laptop out is where the cash is, just like it is with the iPhone thieves and the bike thieves. Stealing a bike and selling may get a thief caught, but selling a Thomson seatpost, a set of kick-butt hubs, set of rims, and other items (with the frame tossed in the garbage) will net one a tidy sum.

  10. Just like plate scanners & phone metadata? by DutchUncle · · Score: 2

    You can only find MAC addresses to check against the "stolen/missing" list if you gather EVERYTHING all the time. So now, just like tracking all of our phone calls and vehicle movements, it's a "safety" idea to track every single wifi device. It sounds so helpful . . . and if only there were some way to add "think of the children!" it would be perfect . . .

    1. Re:Just like plate scanners & phone metadata? by FranTaylor · · Score: 0

      if you gather EVERYTHING all the time.

      if you buy from newegg or target or such, they keep records of these things

      we have these powerful devices called computers that are really good at remembering things like numbers

    2. Re:Just like plate scanners & phone metadata? by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. Yes, they know what my MAC was, but they don't know where I am right now; as opposed to police cars wardriving 24/7, and maybe scanners sitting by the doors of malls and stores and such, looking for the MAC in my cellphone 24/7. Instead of complicated Stingray trackers that spoof the IMEI wireless-phone side, it must be a lot easier to spoof the wifi side. Of course, one can turn off one's wifi, and even keep one's phone in airplane mode - or off! - except as needed . . . but then more or less of the instant comm stuff doesn't quite work.

    3. Re:Just like plate scanners & phone metadata? by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Today's Slashdot: Boston tracks vehicles, after having claimed that they STOPPED doing it, and also left the files unsecured. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...

  11. It must be good, it's Patent Pending by Nkwe · · Score: 1

    I know we like to whine here about patent stuff, so let us start whining! Because scanning a network in order to find a specific set of MAC addresses has never been done before...

  12. Nothing new to see here... by bobbied · · Score: 2

    I've been war driving for years using software that collects, among other interesting things, the MAC addresses of every device it hears. Google got in trouble doing this kind of thing too.

    This is NOT new, nor should he get a patent on this....

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:Nothing new to see here... by chispito · · Score: 1

      I've been war driving for years using software that collects, among other interesting things, the MAC addresses of every device it hears. Google got in trouble doing this kind of thing too.

      This is NOT new, nor should he get a patent on this....

      Exactly. This cutting edge technique could be summed up as "war driving." His magic MAC sniffing dongle might be called a "USB Wifi adapter" and his specialized software could be described as "Kismet."

      You can do this cheaply and easily. Get an old laptop, maybe four wifi adapters with external antennas, a gps, and go. Your first three adapters cover channels 1, 6, and 11, and the fourth hops between the remaining channels.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
  13. Just no ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is it the idiotic response of law enforcement when confronted with dealing with a small problem always to create a big problem.

    So, if the problem is there are a small amount of people who are breaking the law ... we should constantly surveil all people at all times to find that small amount of people.

    Yes, there exist people who rob banks. That doesn't mean you stop everybody and fingerprint and interrogate them in case they robbed a bank. If you have no probable cause, you shut the fuck up and don't do that. And yet time and time again law enforcement rushes to enact the totally fucking stupid "let's just stop everybody just in case".

    And, in a digital world, since you already have that information for one purpose, then you really should use it for other purposes ... you know, in case we need to protect children, or enforce copyright, or ensure nobody has called the police fucking idiots and fascists.

    And when they say bullshit like ""The rest of the packet is ignored," he said. "We have no idea who it is registered to." this will either change over time, or get proven to have never been true.

    Give us your fucking papers, comrade.

    Honestly, I swear the police are either all fucking morons, or all actively trying to find ways to bypass laws which say "you can't fucking do that assholes".

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Just no ... by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      It's even more stupid than that. What is the government going to do even if they do catch these criminals? They're not going to do any serious time in prison. The prisons are full. These types of criminals are the first to be let out so that they have room to house violent criminals. Then they're back on the street committing the same crimes again. It's not unlike people who get caught committing their 20th DUI. There are no serious punishments, so there's no reason for them to stop even if they do get caught.

    2. Re:Just no ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When a police car drives down the street, the officer inside is "surveiling" for stolen cars (with his eyes and a hot sheet). A camera with image recognition that did the same thing would be more effective; but I don't see as it as a problem. How is having a radio receiver that listens for the MAC addresses of known to be stolen devices fundamentally different? Now if the software was to record the location of every MAC address and maintain a database forever that would be different. However, I see no indication that is what is being proposed. Sure it is a technically small step to do so; but until they do that I don't see the problem.

    3. Re:Just no ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't blame the cops. It's us tech people who keep designing unique identifiers into everything. You're blasting beacons into the public spectrum. The cops are just listening to unencrypted broadcasts, something that we've been telling them is completely acceptable. Would you like to get an access point owner's permission before you allow your computer to receive the beacon frames? Or do you want cops to only respond to incident reports, because you consider it a privacy violation if cops go on patrol?

    4. Re:Just no ... by Solandri · · Score: 2

      I seriously doubt the actual intent here is to help track down stolen electronics. When is the last time the police ever helped anyone recover their stolen electronics?

      The real intent is probably to build up a database of MAC addresses and their locations at any given time. So later when they're investigating a homicide, they can cross-reference the database, and say "Ah hah, John Doe's phone was at the scene of the crime at the time the blurry surveillance camera video shows someone killing the clerk at the Kwik-E-Mart." Same thing they try to do with license plate scanners. If all they're looking for is stolen cars, then it just needs to scan and beep when a license plate matches a stolen car. But no, they store the location of every car scanned for months or years so they can retroactively track your movements.

    5. Re:Just no ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These types of criminals are the first to be let out so that they have room to house people convicted of minor drug offenses.

      FTFY

    6. Re:Just no ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will not generally nab a criminal. It might recover stolen property from an innocent who bought it from a criminal (probably from an online alias). For reference look at how unique ESN values prevent smartphone thefts (i.e. they do not).

    7. Re:Just no ... by mrclmn · · Score: 0

      Honestly, I swear the police are either all fucking morons, or all actively trying to find ways to bypass laws which say "you can't fucking do that assholes".

      A little from column A and a little from column B.

    8. Re:Just no ... by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      The real intent is probably to build up a database of MAC addresses and their locations at any given time.

      with fake mac addresses the whole thing is just a stupid game of collecting useless information that won't be any good to anyone

    9. Re:Just no ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the koolaid that the sate wants you to drink. In reality, the stolen car is already cut to pieces hours after it was stolen, not innocently parked in a suburban neighborhood. Rather, this is just the kind of state surveillance that would be the wet dreams of the Stasi. But, of course, it's fascism when Americans do it.

    10. Re:Just no ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it isn't. How many people use their wireless devices only with fake MAC addresses? More than 0.1%? How many petty thieves are bright enough to know what to change and how and actually do it? If that kind of data collection is useless, how can Google use wireless beacon information to provide fast and reliable positioning information in populated areas?

    11. Re:Just no ... by Ian+A.+Shill · · Score: 1
      Well, that's it then. AC sees no problem with it. I'm sold. Good thing you were here with your timely opinion, because the rest of these people on slashdot are so unreasonable in their cavalier attitudes towards the safety of our children.

      When a police car drives down the street, the officer inside is "surveiling" for stolen cars (with his eyes and a hot sheet). A camera with image recognition that did the same thing would be more effective; but I don't see as it as a problem. How is having a radio receiver that listens for the MAC addresses of known to be stolen devices fundamentally different? Now if the software was to record the location of every MAC address and maintain a database forever that would be different. However, I see no indication that is what is being proposed. Sure it is a technically small step to do so; but until they do that I don't see the problem.

      --
      For hire.
  14. The problem is actual recovery by spiritplumber · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've used find-my-phone type things a few times... the police don't care even if you can literally give them the thief's address. Every time it has been up to me and/or friends to enforce property rights, not the police.

    --
    Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
    1. Re:The problem is actual recovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. My last car break in the thieves left BLOODY FINGERPRINTS on my back seat. The cops couldn't care less. They're still there in case someone wants to get in touch with me.

    2. Re:The problem is actual recovery by FranTaylor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When it happened to me I told the thief's landlord. He retrieved my stuff for me and threw her out in the street.

    3. Re:The problem is actual recovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better show up with a gun because you better believe they have a gun. Whether or not they'll use it for some simple stolen goods who knows, but even thieves will feel violated if you come to their door wanting your shit back.

    4. Re:The problem is actual recovery by spiritplumber · · Score: 1

      That's clever, thanks for the suggestion!

      --
      Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
  15. Mac sniffing dongle by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    I met a mac-sniffing dongle once. He finally got his dream job working the Genius Bar.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  16. Apathetic police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This would work for finding most stolen laptops, only if the police weren't apathetic. My brother had his macbook stolen, and with software he had installed, he was able to track down the location of his laptop. But, alas, the police weren't interested in tracking down such a low-grade criminal. They wouldn't do anything.

  17. A database and a map already exists by DrD8m · · Score: 1

    The community Wi-Fi MAC database is already built.
    There's a map done by wardrivers that can be used.
    http://noquest.com/network/locating-stolen-ap/

  18. Tutorial change your WLAN mac permanently (easy!) by burni2 · · Score: 1

    just buy a mini pci express WLAN card from ebay (cheap cheaper extreme cheap) - hopefully it's not a stolen one!

    Replace "mini pci express" card and do what you like with your old card.

    And you have a new mac adress.

    Bad people could throw these in the garbage or the electronics dumps, or sell them at flea markets, so you should not dumpster dive and flea market for those cheap cards there!

  19. I like the general idea by linuxguy · · Score: 1

    I used to be a Sprint Wireless customer. They used to, and probably still do blacklist phones, based on ESN of the phone. The ideas was that stolen phones or phones that were not off contract could not be easily sold. The general concept is sound. And I want something like that for my expensive electronics as well.

    My fully loaded Macbook Pro cost a little more than $3K. If it gets stolen, I would like to be able to get it back. I understand that police may only recover it from an idiot who bought it from a thief. That does not make the original idea invalid. The buying idiot still has to return it to me.

    There still are questions about how the stolen MACs are reported, searched for etc. But I can see how a central database of stolen equipment could be used to look for it. Perhaps coffee shops and other public spots could help identify stolen equipment as well.

    Those of you looking for a perfect solution that handles every case flawlessly will not like anything being proposed here. You should move on. The rest of us will be happy with something that does help with this menace.

    1. Re:I like the general idea by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      Even as much as I disagree with even bricking stolen equipment (it's extremely wasteful in many regards to make perfectly usable equipment unusable), I do understand the sentiment behind why it would be a good thing to do.

      However, tracking stolen devices at coffee shops and public Wi-Fi? How could anything possibly go wrong?

      Step 1. Give your "enemy" (or whoever) a new iPhone and a $10 Starbucks giftcard.
      Step 2. Report device stolen to local police and/or otherwise have it added to the naughty database
      Step 3. Said innocent person or person you (or the powers that be) deem undesirable is arrested for possessing stolen property, or at the very least detained.
      Step 4. Profit??

      What a stupid idea.

    2. Re:I like the general idea by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      My fully loaded Macbook Pro cost a little more than $3K. If it gets stolen, I would like to be able to get it back.

      Buy a used cheapie for the road and leave the good stuff at home. Dings and dents are your friends, they decrease resale value and maybe the thief will pass over junk that he can't sell.

    3. Re:I like the general idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot step 3.5: your "enemy" tells the local police how they came about stolen property.

    4. Re:I like the general idea by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      My fully loaded Macbook Pro cost a little more than $3K. If it gets stolen, I would like to be able to get it back.

      Buy a used cheapie for the road and leave the good stuff at home. Dings and dents are your friends, they decrease resale value and maybe the thief will pass over junk that he can't sell.

      THIS! I bought a cheap eePC netbook for road trips, and lately, a Chromebook. My good stuff is safe at home. Now of course, some people want whatever status may come from top-end macs and Sonys, but as much as I like the Apple offerings, I could not care less about wowing people. My only Apple product I take with me is my iPhone, because it would be kind of silly to get a smartphone, then leave it at home.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  20. Like a LPR for electronics by stinkydog · · Score: 1

    So he wants to build a license plate reader for technocrap. As most gear is set in WiFi whore mode by default, you could build a decent database of "who, where, when" the same way LPRs work. Stick these up on lamposts, or even better at the entrance and exit routes of your town and start building your database. What could go wrong?

    SD

    --
    âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
  21. What about the tracking of non-stolen MACs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long will these be stored? Would they track MAC proximities to track movements of anything with a MAC address. Smacks of the whole license plate reader issue.

  22. BULLSHIT by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    What the hell do they mean "wireless dongle"? At first I thought they were talking about something that you attach to your devices that you don't want stolen. But that makes no sense at all, as the thieves would quickly learn to remove it. Then, after rereading the disclaimer " (any of them with wireless capabilities and a MAC address, at least) " I think that I realize that the "dongle" is some device that the cops would use to intercept wifi signals. Wouldn't make any sense to add a dongle to a wireless device anyway, since the new "dongle" would have to have it's own MAC address (although it would allow for finding stolen items that were not themselves wireless devices). But then it isn't really a "dongle", it is clearly a wifi port and antenna attached to some sort of computer (most cop cars already have laptops and I suspect that most or all have wifi anyway) and special MAC collecting software, similar to what got Google in trouble (although they were even more invasive about it).

    Obviously the police want to collect more invasive information on people too, and they have a damn poor record of ever attempting to return stolen property. (A local news story here told of one person who kept getting bills month after month as his stolen car was driven past toll road license plate scanners almost daily, but they never caught the thief or recovered the car). And what percent of the population is going to be able to help the police when asked "Your Tablet was stolen? Great! What was the MAC address?" ? I would be a lot less skeptical if the police ever expressed interest and were willing to track down stolen cell phones, which clearly have a much greater range and could easily lead police to thieves with just a little effort. But they show no interest in that. Why believe that they want to find stolen items based on a much weaker less reliable wifi signal?

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  23. Sniffing Dongle! by ZecretZquirrel · · Score: 1

    Doors at 9pm. First set at 10.

  24. Most thieves are idiots by linuxwrangler · · Score: 2

    Sure, some crooks might change the MAC but in many devices a hard reset will return it to the default. But a typical burglar kicks in your door, ransacks the house, grabs anything they think will make them a quick buck for next fix and runs.

    I found my camera on Craigslist a couple days after it was stolen in just such a burglary. The cops called him up to "buy" it back and busted him. When I got my camera back it not only had the original configuration settings including my name as the author and copyright holder but also photos of the thief himself taken at the camera store where he tried to sell it.

    Finding the manual and learning how to clear configurations and set MAC addresses is simply not in your average crook's play-book.

    --

    ~~~~~~~
    "You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
    1. Re:Most thieves are idiots by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      The cops called him up to "buy" it back and busted him.

      if you read the other stories here you will see that your experience is fairly unique, the cops don't seem to care about petty larceny very much

    2. Re:Most thieves are idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It would probably be better for you to recover this than for to run the story."

    3. Re:Most thieves are idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I mean what's he going to do? Call the cops? Maybe beat the shit out of you, but dammit you have RIGHT on your side.

  25. Digital License Plate Scanenrs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is nothing but the equivalent of scanning the license plate of cars parked on the street. I don't have a tinfoil hat handy, but why are such blatant violations of privacy to track people through their goods given the same excuse to protect the victims of what can only be described as state surveillance?

    1. Re:Digital License Plate Scanenrs by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      This is nothing but the equivalent of scanning the license plate of cars parked on the street.

      it's perfectly legal when the scanning is done by human eyes and the information is recorded on paper, so what's wrong with doing it with a machine?

      There are cameras all over the roads and the police cars and you can't drive a mile without your license plate being scanned.

      The cops have been scanning license plates for decades, in case you haven't been noticing. And now you think it's a problem?

  26. don't carry your bling by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

    keep the good stuff at home, buy cheap junk for going out and about. stop worrying about theft, enjoy life.

  27. Typical Scenario (and why this would not work) by marciot · · Score: 1

    Theft Victim: I would like to report my laptop stolen
    Police Officer: Okay, could I have the MAC number of your laptop?
    Theft Victim: It’s not a Mac, it’s a PC.
    Police Officer: I mean the unique number associated with your network card.
    Theft Victim: I don’t have a network card, but would my library card work?
    Police Officer: Nevermind.

    1. Re:Typical Scenario (and why this would not work) by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      this wont work anyway, you have to ask for the "hardware address of the wireless card"

      the mac address for the ethernet interface is not going to be very useful here

    2. Re:Typical Scenario (and why this would not work) by marciot · · Score: 1

      this wont work anyway, you have to ask for the "hardware address of the wireless card"

      the mac address for the ethernet interface is not going to be very useful here

      Theft Victim: Huh?

    3. Re:Typical Scenario (and why this would not work) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can get it from their router.

    4. Re:Typical Scenario (and why this would not work) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why it would work: a great number of notebooks are the property of the corporations people work for, and those organisations generally do keep inventory of the MAC addresses of their notebook computers.

      Also it's possible, that if you record the serial number of your computer and you or the police contact the vendor with the serial number, they can confirm the mac address of that machine when it was assembled.

  28. Trust us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course we won't be using this to track the movements of every single citizen via their devices. Really we won't. Trust us.

  29. Legal nightmare by Mantrid42 · · Score: 1

    So the cops want to drive around, scanning for mutable MACs, and if one matches up with a database they control, then they'll have probable cause to enter a dwelling. Yup, no way to abuse that!

  30. Wholesale invasion of privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is even worse than license plate scanners. I do not want law enforcement driving around recording the locations of WiFi equipment and building databases of where my iPad is between 6pm and 8pm on Saturday nights for 20 years.
    Without mandatory deletion of unrelated (non-stolen equipment) records and mandatory minimal retention periods, this is just another excuse for the state to vacuum up records they should not be permitted to keep.
    Especially in this day of smart mobile devices, all with WiFi interfaces, this is virtual tracking of innocent people, without any legal limitiations.

  31. Warrantless eavesdropping, not stolen goods by billstewart · · Score: 2

    This is another Stingray variant, for acquiring information without warrants, and isn't about stolen goods. It just has a better cover story, and a developer who's not insisting on NDAs to cover illegal mobile phone wiretapping because sucking up publicly broadcast information like SSIDs and MACs isn't explicitly illegal.

    Your average 90 IQ police department isn't going to search for stolen iPhones even if the user comes to them and says"My phone got stolen, '$Get-My-Phone-Back-App' says it's located at 766 Valencia St, here's the picture of the user, Facebook says he's Pat Smith, mugshots-online.sf.ca.gov shows a matching picture and his record of petty theft and fencing, and the app shows he's been there for 3 hours, yes, I know that address is the Central Police Station, he's in Room 243. Can you walk upstairs and ask him to give my phone back?"

    Your average police department also doesn't have a list of MAC addresses for stolen goods, nor do most theft victims - if my work laptop gets stolen, maybe the IT department has that somewhere, but if my home PC gets stolen, I don't, unless possibly my router's NAT table or my ISP has the MAC cached, but it's pretty unlikely.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Warrantless eavesdropping, not stolen goods by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Can you walk upstairs and ask him to give my phone back?

      This isn't how you frame the question. You need to have a little chat with your buddy in the department and buy 'em a beer.

      Political connections also help.

  32. MAC addresses are not unique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having held two 3c509B's in my hands with identical MAC address I can attest two this. They're unique enough for hosts on a subnet... Most of the time.

    This article is flamebait anyway, nothing to see here..

  33. "There's an app for that!" by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    It won't work for exactly the same reason. Your average laptop owner doesn't know their device's MAC address.

    There's an app for that! (Or easily could be.)

    It would be trivial to build an application that would squirrel this info away for the user - like onto a database on various services (paid or free) that he subscribes to or registers for. (A good one would be the registration for the manufacturer's warranty.)

    It would also be trivial to include the various device MAC addresses along with the serial number, on the label, in the databases that print the reciept at the electronics store, and in the manufacturer's records (even without warranty registration). Give the manufacturer the serial number (and your own identification or a police report number if he doesn't know you) and he gives you (or the cops) the MAC addresses of interest.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  34. Not just mutable, but not unique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Contrary to popular believe, MAC addresses are not unique. There's just 24 bits for the NIC one you remove the OUI (16.7M unique addresses). However worse, many manufacturers will only use a sub-set of the available range, often using the first 4-8 bits as a product identifier. For example, Samsung made 73M mobile phones, in 3Q2014. There's a lot of duplicate MAC addresses out there.

  35. The biggest problem ... by allo · · Score: 1

    Is that the Police can locate anybody, by reporting his device as stolen.