Slashdot Mirror


Airbnb Guest Found Hidden Surveillance Camera By Scanning Wi-Fi Network (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A New Zealand family that booked an Airbnb in Ireland recently discovered an undisclosed camera in the living room, and the family says that Airbnb initially cleared the host of any wrongdoing before finally banning the offender from its platform. "Once the family had unpacked, Andrew Barker, who works in IT security, scanned the house's Wi-Fi network," CNN reported today. "The scan unearthed a camera and subsequently a live feed. From the angle of the video, the family tracked down the camera, concealed in what appeared to be a smoke alarm or carbon monoxide detector." Nealie Barker posted an image on Facebook showing the location of the camera in the living room and a shot of the family from the sneaky video feed.

Based on the photo, the video of the Barkers seems to have been taken on March 3 and was viewable on the local Wi-Fi network at 192.168.0.4/video/livemb.asp. The family relocated to a hotel and contacted both Airbnb and the property host. The host initially hung up but later called back and told them, "The camera in the living room was the only one in the house," CNN wrote. It's not clear whether the host was recording the video, whether he was capturing audio, whether he was monitoring it remotely in real time, or whether he was using it for anything more than monitoring guests. [...] Airbnb temporarily suspended the listing and promised to investigate, CNN wrote. But when Barker contacted Airbnb again two weeks later, "the company told her that the host had been 'exonerated,' and the listing reinstated." Airbnb finally banned the host after Nealie Barker posted about the disturbing incident on Facebook on Monday this week. Barker's Facebook post said that Airbnb's "investigation which didn't include any follow-up with us exonerated the host, no explanation provided," and that "the listing (with hidden camera not mentioned) is still on Airbnb."
Airbnb said in a statement to Ars Technica: "Our original handling of this incident did not meet the high standards we set for ourselves, and we have apologized to the family and fully refunded their stay."

Airbnb's policy states that hosts must disclose "any type of surveillance device" in listings, "even if it's not turned on or hooked up." Cameras are allowed in certain spaces if they are disclosed, but Airbnb "prohibit[s] any surveillance devices that are in or that observe the interior of certain private spaces (such as bedrooms and bathrooms) regardless of whether they've been disclosed. [...] If a host discloses the device after booking, Airbnb will allow the guest to cancel the reservation and receive a refund. Host cancellation penalties may apply."

99 comments

  1. Par by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the course

  2. Several days old story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No wonder there are like 125 total slashdot readers these days.

    Back in the day hotlinks shut shit down. Now its just like Anon Coward posting hi boys hi guys

    1. Re:Several days old story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hi boys hi guys

    2. Re: Several days old story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hi boys hi guys

    3. Re: Several days old story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also this may be a dupe there was another similar story here in the last week or so.

      Slashdot traffic has gone way down it is basically just regurgitating old stories. I do not bother to log in anymore. Been stopping by here everyday for 20 years and it is nothing like the old days. Too many shit posters and the editors are just bad at their job.

    4. Re: Several days old story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hi boys hi guys

      hi boys hi guys

    5. Re:Several days old story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hi boys hi guys
         

    6. Re: Several days old story. by bobby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yup, very sad. I also blame things like the mod system. I don't quite understand why I can't mod if I post.

      They should give some of us (who want to be positive and contribute) a great deal of mod power / points to quickly clean up the site.

      Keep track of who mods who and what and block abusers; but otherwise clean up this site.

    7. Re: Several days old story. by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't quite understand why I can't mod if I post.

      That is quite why enough.

    8. Re: Several days old story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FBI took over Slashdot. This is why it's weak now. It used to be too strong of a public audience to be in the hands of goyim. Now it's just a fraction.

      Thanks JIDF

    9. Re: Several days old story. by dk20 · · Score: 2

      I'm with you.. I've been stopping here every day for a long time. Remember when it had great stories, and relevant comments? When a link on slashdot generated so much traffic sites woud post they had the 'slashdot effect'?

      Now it is just full of trolls and morons who waste so much of their own time entering the captcha just to post useless crap.

    10. Re: Several days old story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Slashdot has always been a hotbed for trolls, mostly because of the lack of comment deletion. The site is actually far more restrictive about comments now since a lot of trolling actually does get deleted. That was unthinkable when CmdrTaco ran this site. There have always been really vile comments like the stuff Ralph JewHater Nader posted. Discussions were filled with disruptive comments, both logged-in and anonymous ones.

      The problem isn't that there are more low quality comments; if anything, there are fewer. The low quality comment sections are due to the fact that users who post quality comments have left Slashdot disproportionately compared to disruptive users. Low quality comments can be filtered with comment thresholds and, if anything, there are more comment filters and restrictions now than ever before.

      There are far more discussion sites now than 20 years ago, so Slashdot isn't nearly as unique. Slashdot has also changed the type of stories it posts. As someone who's interested in programming and open source, the stories just aren't that interesting. Slashdot has become more of a generic tech site and less news for nerds, stuff that matters. The current crop of editors is pretty bad; just look how BeauHD misuses the DEC logo.

      When whipslash said he had long-admired Slashdot, it wasn't as a reader. He didn't have an account until he bought the site. No, he admired the site because he wanted it in his portfolio. The site meant something personally to Rob Malda and the other early editors, but not really to the current owners and editors. They're not personally invested, and everything just feels half-assed because of that. The result is so low quality that there just isn't a lot interesting to post about any longer.

      Just to prove my point, I had to seriously edit this comment just to get it past the lameness filter.

    11. Re: Several days old story. by bobby · · Score: 1

      I don't quite understand why I can't mod if I post.

      That is quite why enough.

      That makes no sense. Care to explain?

      On a certain red site I can post and mod same story.

    12. Re: Several days old story. by bobby · · Score: 1

      Awesome post. Absolutely agree on all points. Wish I could mod you up. Maybe it's time to start yet another similar site, unless you know of a good one somewhere. And I mean good science and tech with occasional political / other really pertinent news.

      "lameness filter"? I wasn't aware there was one. I'll have to learn about it.

      If I were to start a site, how would you feel about _limited_ advertising? No moving things ever. No overlays, popups, nothing intrusive ever. Just nice simple static ads in side columns.

    13. Re: Several days old story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hello boys hello guys, lawnboy yardman

    14. Re: Several days old story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a technology site. You should know this.

    15. Re: Several days old story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't quite understand why I can't mod if I post.

      That is quite why enough.

      That makes no sense. Care to explain?

      On a certain red site I can post and mod same story.

      One (possible) reason: modding-only forces you to step back and not be involved in the conversation. Once someone start commenting, they tend to take a side, and will probably reinforce any posts that agree with them.

      Modding-only encourages (in theory) a more neutral outlook since you don't have a dog in the fight. Of course everyone has biases, and they tend to vote for/against certain outlooks, but hopefully a random number of people, the mod points will be spread across varying personalities.

    16. Re: Several days old story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See:

      * https://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml

    17. Re: Several days old story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To disallow modding own posts.

    18. Re: Several days old story. by Orp · · Score: 1

      Hacker News is very active - I suspect a lot of geeks are there. What does slashdot offer that is truly unique any more (not counting anon coward shenanigans)?

      --
      A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?
    19. Re: Several days old story. by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      Like reffing a game you are a player in.

    20. Re: Several days old story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't quite understand why I can't mod if I post.

      You mean you don't already have a huge stash of other sock puppet accounts to control your narrative? Pfftt ... Amature!

    21. Re: Several days old story. by bobby · · Score: 1

      Thank you for an uncommonly interesting, informative, and useful answer. I'm in NO WAY attacking you or your answer, even though I know people will interpret it that way, and insist I'm attacking. Sigh. Anyway, I understand what you're saying, but I've been observing for years that people seem to think their philosophical imaginations are more real than actual reality. How often I've heard someone say "that shouldn't happen". Turns out reality is different than what many people theorize it should be.

      The correct statement should be: reality is different than what I imagined it to be. And then learn, hopefully.

      Again, on a certain RED site, you can comment AND mod the same story, and it's working very well, so I think the mutual exclusivity here doesn't make sense. And for the very reason that if I have interest in a topic, I do want to discuss and contribute, as well as mod. If I have no interest in a story, I feel I have no business modding, and I do take this seriously. Some people here are brilliant, and contribute greatly. I'd like to engage in a discussion and weed out the trolls, and mod up the really good stuff.

      Sigh, I think I need to start my own site! Been thinking about it for a few years... I have the server space...

    22. Re: Several days old story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You insensitive bastard, do you know how many gender classifications you just excluded?

    23. Re: Several days old story. by bobby · · Score: 1

      That's a great way to look at it- I wish I could mod you up. But I'm not asking to referee myself. As I commented above, if I'm interested in a story, I'm interested in both modding and commenting. If I'm not interested, neither. And I take modding seriously and I don't toss mod points around, so if I'm not interested in a topic, I have no business modding- certainly little interest or motivation. Gotta think about it some more, but on RED site you can do both (and I do). Thanks and cheers!

    24. Re: Several days old story. by bobby · · Score: 1

      Thank you! I've avoided most "social media" for, well, 25 years, but it's getting better in some ways and places, the discussions and people here are getting better, and here is now better (IMHO) than the RED site. I'll check out HN. Might just start a site...

    25. Re: Several days old story. by bobby · · Score: 1

      Sorry- my above post was meant for you. My MS mouse has a wonky scroll wheel that occasionally skips up or down, and must have done its dirty work as I was clicking on "reply" and I didn't realize it.

      Anyway, I appreciate your reply but it's really not the same thing. All I can say it it's working well on another site. And I have some different ideas for a site like this. Someday...

    26. Re: Several days old story. by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      No worries.

      I once tried running a web forum with no moderation at all. It did not work out well.

      Cheers

  3. Exhibit 998,009,430,912 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On my humanity is a cancer and should die out.

    No wonder tumors are so common, they find us kindred spirits.

  4. Stuff vs Privacy by KalvinB · · Score: 4, Informative

    When "hosts" leave a bunch of valuable stuff around for their "guests" it's little wonder they care more about protecting their crap than the privacy of the guests.

    Stop renting out space that has your stuff in it.

    Nothing of value should be in the property, everything should be documented and have proper insurance.

    1. Re:Stuff vs Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What insurance? Is there a home insurance which covers Airbnb guests? It wouldn't surprise me if home insurance companies routinely search for properties they insure on Airbnb and like services to mitigate and liability costs.

    2. Re:Stuff vs Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Airbnb wasn't supposed to be about renting entire spaces. it was meant to be for renting rooms in homes. i.e. you were home to keep things 'safe'. Legislators need to get their shit together and simply rule that renting entire apartments/houses for individual nights means 'hotel' subject to all the local and higher levels of regulation that that involves. Get it back to what it was meant for - stop causing damage to others through the use of a fancy name and a web app to hide your activities. Man up that if you're running a damn business, follow the rules.

    3. Re:Stuff vs Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really doesn't matter what their reasons are, you just can't have cameras in a rental property or hotel room. People walk around nude, have sex, etc...

    4. Re:Stuff vs Privacy by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Stop renting out space that has your stuff in it.

      Or learn to do a cost-benefit analysis. I have been an Airbnb host for 6 years and the worst that has happened is a few broken wine glasses and a stained towel. Since I had bought them at Walmart, total replacement cost was about $20.

      A single bad review can cost me 100 times that in lost bookings.

      Broken/stolen/damaged items are a non-problem.

      everything should be documented and have proper insurance.

      Insurance is to cover unaffordable expenses such as legal liability. Only an idiot would buy insurance for kitchen utensils or a TV from Costco.

    5. Re:Stuff vs Privacy by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Is there a home insurance which covers Airbnb guests?

      Yes. It is about three times the cost of normal homeowner's insurance. But it is mostly targeted toward dumb people, since Airbnb provides $1M in liability insurance during bookings.

      It wouldn't surprise me if home insurance companies routinely search for properties they insure on Airbnb

      They don't bother since they can just refuse to pay the claim, since the homeowner violated the terms.

    6. Re:Stuff vs Privacy by Dan+East · · Score: 0

      It really doesn't matter what their reasons are, you just can't have cameras in a rental property or hotel room. People walk around nude, have sex, etc

      Hotels most certainly have cameras all over the place - just not in private spaces. Bedrooms and bathrooms would be considered private spaces. This camera was in a main section of the building, not in a private space. So from a legal perspective they should be perfectly fine, even without disclosure (when was the last time you checked into a hotel and the desk clerk disclosed that you were already on camera, and the halls and other public spaces also had cameras?) The owner violated Airbnb policy that all such devices must be disclosed, and that was probably an acceptable risk because apparently the owner felt the camera necessary to protect the property in various ways (who was actually in the building and when, how many people in total, etc).

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    7. Re:Stuff vs Privacy by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      The camera was in the living room. Was there public in the living room? You've never had sex on a couch?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    8. Re:Stuff vs Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dan East, you must be one boring and sad dude. When someone rents a flat, apartment, house, villa, etc. it is reasonable to treat the entire interior as a private space safe from your prying eyes. To equate it as the same as a hotel lobby is nonsense.

    9. Re:Stuff vs Privacy by rmdingler · · Score: 2

      Insurance is to cover unaffordable expenses such as legal liability. Only an idiot would buy insurance for kitchen utensils or a TV from Costco.

      Yup. Generally, insurance is something you are required to pay to have at home and, doubly so, in business. Still, sometimes it costs X to have the insurance if you never use it, and X+Y if you ever file a claim.

      For small(ish) claims that you can afford to just write a check to cover, don't call and initiate a claim. Save your insurance for catastrophic incidents you can't pay yourself out of.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    10. Re:Stuff vs Privacy by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      It really doesn't matter what their reasons are, you just can't have cameras in a rental property or hotel room. People walk around nude, have sex, etc...

      Damn! On my couch? The sheets and blankets I put on the bed at least preserve the feasibility of sterile rental coitus.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    11. Re:Stuff vs Privacy by sjames · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not quite. Hotels may have cameras in the parts you're not renting (the public spaces), such as the lobby and dining room. If you're renting the whole house, then the whole house is the private space.

    12. Re:Stuff vs Privacy by beavhd · · Score: 0

      And we have every right in the world to watch.

    13. Re:Stuff vs Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read "rental" as "rectal." Works either way.

    14. Re:Stuff vs Privacy by Carewolf · · Score: 2

      When "hosts" leave a bunch of valuable stuff around for their "guests" it's little wonder they care more about protecting their crap than the privacy of the guests.

      Stop renting out space that has your stuff in it.

      Nothing of value should be in the property, everything should be documented and have proper insurance.

      Or you could use AIrBnB the way they claim it is supposed to be used: To rent out an extra room or a couch. If you are also living there at the same time, you don't need a camera..

      But of course 90% of AirBnB is just unlicenced hotels.

    15. Re:Stuff vs Privacy by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Airbnb wasn't supposed to be about renting entire spaces. it was meant to be for renting rooms in homes. i.e. you were home to keep things 'safe'. Legislators need to get their shit together and simply rule that renting entire apartments/houses for individual nights means 'hotel' subject to all the local and higher levels of regulation that that involves. Get it back to what it was meant for - stop causing damage to others through the use of a fancy name and a web app to hide your activities. Man up that if you're running a damn business, follow the rules.

      Many places already have laws like that, but like with Uber, AirBnB have in many places managed to get out of it, because the drivers/landlords are the ones breaking the law not the international organization organizing the crime. And then they say it is not their job to police their platform, and keep listings from cities where all their listings are illegal.

      It has taken years to kick Uber out of many countries, or force them to obey the law. Only now is Airbnb also under scrutiny. And in both cases only a few select honest countries actually bother trying to update or enforce laws against popular law breakers.

    16. Re:Stuff vs Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Airbnb wasn't supposed to be about renting entire spaces.

      And Uber was about "ride sharing" and not "taxiing" originally. If you were going in a certain direction or to a certain place anyway, then why not split the cost of gas or parking with someone who happened to be going there too? Crowd sourced hitch hiking.

      SF (and other places) have had casual carpooling / slugging for years before the paid companies showed up:

      * https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbender/2016/03/10/a-practically-free-alternative-to-uber-and-lyft-you-are-missing-out-on/#1e03be8e81ad

    17. Re: Stuff vs Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When "hosts" leave a bunch of valuable stuff around for their "guests" it's little wonder they care more about protecting their crap than the privacy of the guests.

      Hey! wait! I got a new complaint.
      Forever in debt to your priceless advice.

      What about if the host is really a guest, or guest really a host, but doesn't know it? Do they have expectations of privacy too? What about their stuff? Maybe that only applies to the newer models. The struggle is real with the cognitive dissonance!

      This is an issue you'll have to take up with park management, if you still can. You may need to first cut yourself open to make sure there are no hidden USB data ports in your arm and that your skull isn't transmitting hidden wifi signals.

    18. Re:Stuff vs Privacy by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      The issue is homeowners are rarely good business people. They dont understand that their home is now a business.

      --
      Good-bye
    19. Re: Stuff vs Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Some nicer hotels have separate bedroom and living room spaces (separated by a wall and door). If you rented one of those, you wouldn't just accept a camera in the living room part just because it wasn't the bedroom or bathroom. So it's no different when renting a house.

    20. Re:Stuff vs Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liability insurance doesn't cover the host's personal property damage or theft. Liability insurance covers claims by the guests against the hosts.

    21. Re:Stuff vs Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw Sterile Rental Coitus at Bonaroo last year. Their set just slayed.

  5. Well sure by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Homeowners probably read this article or any number of equally disturbing disaster rentals.

    Googling "AirBnB renters trash house" gets similar results as typing in "Florida Man" and a random date.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Well sure by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      However a camera does not protect you from that ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:Well sure by Daralantan · · Score: 1
      I decided to search that phrase and found this article. Holy shit.

      There were broken windows and doors, damaged furniture, glass everywhere and large blood stains throughout the rental property,

  6. Fair enough by theCat · · Score: 2

    Homeowners naturally would like to keep tabs on who does what in their home-for-let. Apparently, it's fine so long as they follow some rules. The homeowner did not, maybe didn't know the rules or misunderstood the requirement. So the handling was probably okay. A rules violation.

    Further, I don't see that camera being "sneaky". That's a real CC camera, they are all over the place in buildings and public places. Doesn't look like anything except exactly what it is.

    However we hear reports out of Korea where they have hidden cameras in lavatories looking like soap dispensers, and there is apparently a cottage industry of providers of hidden camera streams and up-skirt videos. That is obviously shady, no two ways about it. The current case, not so much.

    --
    =^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
    1. Re:Fair enough by godel_56 · · Score: 1

      Homeowners naturally would like to keep tabs on who does what in their home-for-let. Apparently, it's fine so long as they follow some rules. The homeowner did not, maybe didn't know the rules or misunderstood the requirement. So the handling was probably okay. A rules violation.

      Further, I don't see that camera being "sneaky". That's a real CC camera, they are all over the place in buildings and public places. Doesn't look like anything except exactly what it is.

      However we hear reports out of Korea where they have hidden cameras in lavatories looking like soap dispensers, and there is apparently a cottage industry of providers of hidden camera streams and up-skirt videos. That is obviously shady, no two ways about it. The current case, not so much.

      That was my thought as well. Apparently Airbnb owners are allowed to put in surveillance cameras providing they make full disclosure to the guests. That seems to be their fault here.

    2. Re:Fair enough by sjames · · Score: 2

      At LEAST read TF Summary:

      the family tracked down the camera, concealed in what appeared to be a smoke alarm or carbon monoxide detector

    3. Re:Fair enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Airbnb rules are one thing, morality another, legislation still another, and judicial decisions play into it very strongly too.

      Lastly, 'where you are' is important too. For example, in most Western democracies .. ignorance of the law is no excuse.

      And ignorance of a signed contract? Signing indicates you *agree* with it, and 'signing' can be a click in many localities these days. You rent your home with airbnb? Then you'd better read what you sign, and agree to!

      So the homeowner was 100% WRONG WRONG WRONG. Doesn't matter if they misunderstood, or didn't know.. they broke a big one, as you can see by the eventual banning. And the camera is sneaky, because it was hidden, and in a private space -- that's what a home is in the US. 100% private, rented, owned, and airbnb is rented...

      And lastly.. airbnb doesn't allow cameras in spaces if they disclose it. It's *certain* spaces. The "certain" part is paramount.

  7. I wouldn't have moved to a hotel... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    Step 1: Disconnect router "accidentally" while plugging phone in.
    Step 2: Superglue on the camera's lense.

    Not like the owners can really bitch about damage, since the camera is either against AirBnB's ToS or outright illegal. Possibly both.

    1. Re:I wouldn't have moved to a hotel... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Giving the owner a show is also an option. Make some hot love, then wipe your cum all over the camera lense...

    2. Re:I wouldn't have moved to a hotel... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Not like the owners can really bitch about damage, since the camera is either against AirBnB's ToS or outright illegal. Possibly both.
      One thing has nothing to do with the other. Obviously he can sue you for damage ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  8. Shaddy state of affair in US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Police get investigated only if there is a video evidence. AirBnB investigates only if there is a video evidence. For every one video evidence there are hundreds of victims without any video evidence and they don't get investigated specially if the offender is a powerful entity. Feel sorry for Americans.
    Sincerely
    AC Canadian

    1. Re:Shaddy state of affair in US by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      This happened in Ireland, not the US, BTW.

  9. Probably worth the "risk" by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    It's probably worth the risk for a homeowner to conceal a camera in the main area of a home to have at least some evidence in case something happens to the property. After all, the risk is "Airbbnb no longer lets you rent your property through them" which is probably an acceptable liability for having some evidence for use in legal proceedings. The "legality" of having a camera in a private residence, in a "public" space like a living room or kitchen is probably pretty sound. This is purely an Airbnb requirement that it be disclosed.

    A couple more comments on this specific case... It's blatantly obvious to me that the camera shown in the FB picture is a camera or security device and not a smoke detector, as there is a detector three feet away from it. If someone would ask me what I thought that was, I would say a camera or part of a security system. So I don't think this was a *hidden* camera, but more specifically an *undisclosed* camera.

    Second thought is it would be trivial to place the camera on ethernet, since it is already requiring wiring for power anyway. Then it wouldn't be as easy to sniff if. I'm surprised the homeowner didn't use a dual zone router in the first place, with a public zone for guests and the private, non-broadcast, secure zone for the various devices in the house. An Airbnb in the past I stayed at functioned in this way. The owner supposedly couldn't remember the credentials to the public router space, so I bought my own router / access point and hooked it up to an ethernet port to give us Wifi access for our stay.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Probably worth the "risk" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless a 17 year old girl walks past it without wearing enough clothing.

      Remember that creation and possession of child pornography is a strict liability crime. No intent or knowledge needed.

      Slam dunk case for the local prosecutor and you get to spend the next five years of your life in prison because you wanted to have your cake and eat it too.

    2. Re: Probably worth the "risk" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In ireland its 16

    3. Re:Probably worth the "risk" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I'm surprised the homeowner didn't use a dual zone router in the first place, with a public zone for guests and the private, non-broadcast, secure zone for the various devices in the house.

      Seriously? Most people think this stuff is practically magic, and you'd have to be some kind of super-hacker just to run a simple nmap scan like the guy found the camera with. What you're talking about isn't terribly hard, but for 95% or the population it's the equivalent of building your own private, nuclear reactor. The vast majority of the population would have no clue what you're even talking about, much less how to accomplish it.


        It's blatantly obvious to me that the camera shown in the FB picture is a camera or security device and not a smoke detector,

      What makes it so blatantly obvious? If it were blatantly obvious, the host wouldn't have only admitted the camera until he was presented with irrefutable evidence.

      Methinks you suffer very greatly from the curse of knowledge. You can't imagine that other people don't know as much as you. Trust me, they don't.

    4. Re:Probably worth the "risk" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fter all, the risk is "Airbbnb no longer lets you rent your property through them" which is probably an acceptable liability for having some evidence for use in legal proceedings. The "legality" of having a camera in a private residence, in a "public" space like a living room or kitchen is probably pretty sound. This is purely an Airbnb requirement that it be disclosed.

      1) The legal proceedings it would be used as evidence in are much more likely to be against the owner, so congratulations, you just provided evidence against yourself that it is a crime to hide or destroy in the event of litigation. Better make sure you keep those recordings!
      2) A living room in a leasehold estate (which is what an AirBNB tenancy is, despite your so badly wanting it not be) is nothing resembling a public space under Irish (Or UK, Canadian, or US) law.
      3) Placing a camera in such a space without a specific provision and adequate notice in the lease is is itself a both a crime ad trespassory tort under Irish (and UK, and Canadian, and USA) law, so no, it is not at all "legally sound."

      In short, you are not a lawyer and are full of shit. So stop trying to give legal advice on Slashdot.

    5. Re:Probably worth the "risk" by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The "legality" of having a camera in a private residence, in a "public" space like a living room or kitchen is probably pretty sound.
      Erm ... no?
      You rent something ... the moment you rent it, it belongs to the renter. Regardless if you do it via AirBNB or privately or craiglist etc.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re: Probably worth the "risk" by Code+Herder · · Score: 1

      I saw a local case in the paper, the dude had a camera in the living room and a family moved in for the week end. Well there was a pool and the two little kids around 7 and 9 put their swimsuits on in the living room. Yeah he just filmed child pornography and when he streamed the movie to his home server for storage it was distribution. They said he would probably not go to prison but it would be very hard not to get on the sex offender registery. His life had just ended right there because of a stupid camera.

  10. A way to detect camera lenses.... by Iwastheone · · Score: 2, Informative
    If there's a camera in some place that I'm renting, that'd be when duct tape is my friend. There currently a device on kickstarter that can be used to detect working camera lenses. Below is from https://www.kickstarter.com/pr...

    How Does It Work? When the power button is “pressed” on side of unit, and you look through the viewfinder, it activates six special bright-red LED strobe lights designed to bounce off the smallest of camera lenses. The tiny camera lens will appear to blink back at you as a reflection off camera lens itself , instantly giving away its location as you scan the area around you. It doesn’t matter if the camera is turned on or off, recording or not...even if its a non-working camera, the blinking effect will clearly show you the presence of a camera lens which is almost impossible to detect with the naked eye. Knowing where the camera is located will allow you to take immediate action to prevent unauthorized recording of activity. In addition, there are 3 LED intensity levels which helps hone in on camera lenses which could be hidden behind different surfaces. A flat wall 30 feet away could use the highest LED intensity, while a semi reflective shiny surface 5 feet away would use the lowest intensity. This prevents false reflections, maximizing the ability to find a hidden camera lens in any room environment.

    1. Re:A way to detect camera lenses.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you can wait 2 weeks and buy the $8 knock-off on eBay. That's a great idea and the implementation looks good, but $198 for a few ICs, 6 IR LEDs, and $2 worth of injection molding is insane. I can see $59 even, but $200?

    2. Re:A way to detect camera lenses.... by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Or you can wait 2 weeks and buy the $8 knock-off on eBay. That's a great idea and the implementation looks good, but $198 for a few ICs, 6 IR LEDs, and $2 worth of injection molding is insane. I can see $59 even, but $200?

      $200 is steep .. but I'm sure the "think o fetch children crowd" will think its reasonable

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re: A way to detect camera lenses.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know this is an existing device already right? You can see it in some 80s spy movies. Or buy one on eBay/AliExpress for 5-15$. Some also have an RF detector.

    4. Re:A way to detect camera lenses.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are Chinese knock-offs on Amazon for less than $20. I used this on our last VRBO. Seems to pick up cameras on phones, etc., OK.

    5. Re:A way to detect camera lenses.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Affordable, compact, easy to use cam scanners have been around for at least a decade, dude.

      I have this friend who is re-inventing a wheel, we got a kickstarter....

  11. Why hdie it by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

    The creepy part is that the camera is hidden. If you want.to put it out in the open and let all your guests know you might be watching them 24x7 and you can get people to stay by all means, but if you feel you are in the right then why hide it.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Why hdie it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was hardly hidden. It was, in fact, a fairly normal ceiling-mounted camera dome. I'm sure that you've seen them all over the place. There's a picture in the linked article. It's pretty obvious what it is.

    2. Re:Why hdie it by quenda · · Score: 1

      The creepy part is that the camera is hidden.

      How is it creepy? It was in the common room, and quite obviously there for non-nefarious purposes.

      I'd have just stuck some tape over it, checked there were no other cameras, and got on with enjoying my vacation.

    3. Re:Why hdie it by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      'Common room'? Unless the room was public how can you know people wouldn't be walking around naked in it? You have never had sex on a couch?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:Why hdie it by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Besides, if it's not a problem, why hide it?? That was kind of my point.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    5. Re:Why hdie it by quenda · · Score: 1

      'Common room'? Unless the room was public how can you know people wouldn't be walking around naked in it?

      What's with the nudity phobia? Are you assuming the camera was for sexual voyeurism?

      I read that if there was a chemical weapons attack in the US, thousands of people would rather die than remove their contaminated clothing in public.

    6. Re:Why hdie it by quenda · · Score: 1

      Besides, if it's not a problem, why hide it??

      Are you talking about the camera, or the human body?

    7. Re:Why hdie it by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      All I'm saying is if there are going to be nude videos of me, I'd better be benefiting from them. Not some person who I don't even know.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    8. Re:Why hdie it by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      You must be European.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  12. Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this a dupe?

  13. Good idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've stayed in many Air B&Bs, I know how to scan a network, and I know about the camera problem. I did actually look around for cameras last time I stayed at an air B&B, but for some reason it never occurred to me to just run an nmap scan. Duh.

    From now on, I'll run the scan and see what's on the network.

  14. sell it as a perk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell the renters in the listing that there are hidden cameras. There are going to be some who would not rent there. There will be others who plain don't care because they are so well behaved that there wouldn't be a show anyway. AND there are going to be them as think, "Well, we can put on a show and either get caught damaging the place thinking there were not really cameras or are going to put on a show that could be posted on a porn site. Fun times all around.

  15. Hmmm... by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    Rectal property, at a minimum, would seem to imply the sale of the Back Forty.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  16. Why would you expect anything more from Airbnb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Our original handling of this incident did not meet the high standards we set for ourselves, and we have apologized to the family and fully refunded their stay."

    This seems to meet the standards of a company that is in the business of helping its clients unilaterally monetize the peace and safety of their neighbors.

  17. SUE THE Shit out them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AIRBNB NEEDS A LESSON in customer service. What an awesome way to handle this matter.

  18. Lottery effect by Solandri · · Score: 1
    Where the dramatic rare instance weighs more heavily in people's minds than the huge majority of mundane typical occurrences.
    • People view lotteries positively because of the story of the rare winner, while the vast majority of players are losers.
    • Gambling in general exploits the same thing, although your odds of winning tend to be a bit better.
    • Many people fear traveling by air, even though it's statistically the safest method of transportation.
    • Many people fear nuclear power, even though statistically it's the safest power source man has ever invented (fewest deaths for the amount of power generated; yes fewer than wind or solar or hydro).
    • Anti-vaxxers remember the one dramatic story about a kid who was diagnosed with autism shortly after getting vaccinated, while ignoring the plethora of scientific evidence to the contrary (because "nothing happened" is mundane).

    Lots more, but you probably get the idea. People suck at making rational decisions when it comes to rare events.

  19. Why do Airbnb rentals get a free pass? by Solandri · · Score: 2

    My family runs a commercial building. Despite it being our building, we're not even allowed to enter the units we rent out to our tenants unless the tenant invite us in first. When we evict someone, we have to file paperwork with the city and allow the tenant time to respond (whole process takes about 6 months). And when everything is in order, we're only allowed into our own building with a police escort.

    I have security cameras around the outside for the tenants' protection since we've had a few robberies. But no way in hell would I ever get away with putting security cameras in their units, even if I first disclosed it to them. I know it's the same for hotels, and I imagine it's the same for apartment rentals. Why do homeowners running Airbnb rentals get held to a different standard?

  20. Cameras with default password by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A point to be noted is how the guy found the camera. All these low cost cameras are sharing common characteristics including a hardcoded password. So if you find some given ID on your network, such as NX-(bunch of numbers) you can access it with the default password. You can change this password but it's not documented, you have to connect with a PC to the web server and set the password, it's not possible to change it with the phone app.

  21. "High Standard" by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Actually AirBnB's investigation followed the exact standard they set for themselves. AirBnB's own policy says that it will only ban a host if a hidden camera is in the bedroom, bathroom, or single room rental.

    If AirBnB wants to sound apologetic then can change their standard rather than spin bullshit.

  22. it's a crazy cycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Airbnb users want accommodations cheaper than hotels when the reality is that hotels cost what they cost because that's what it costs to run them and make a respectable profit. That means that by definition if you're paying less, you're getting less. And one thing you get less of is respect for your privacy and less regulatory oversight to make sure that the "hotel" is being held to standards.

  23. Don't you always by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    Run an nmap against any network to which you are connected? I know I do.

  24. Not a credible enforcer of its own policies by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

    So yet another story confirms that a VC capital funded IT startup has no credibility. Buyer beware. Use at your own risk. Don't expect any kind of ethical behaviour from them.

    I wonder what they're like as employers?

    --
    Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
  25. Caveat Emptor by sursurrus · · Score: 1

    I don't travel much and when I do I stay in hotels. I've had two airBnBs so far, and both of them were pretty extreme cases of let the Buyer beware.

    #1 - billed as private room & bath in the host's house. Host mentioned "two beautiful, clean cats" but no other occupants. Day 1, host says her friend was staying in the room i was supposed to get and "would I mind" staying in this other room (so two separate rental rooms in the same house) the first night while she cleaned up. Already a little suspicious, I agree. Then as I expected there is more bullshit the next day... oh if you like it you can just stay there. I point out that I booked the room because it had its own private bath and the alternative room doesn't, so I'm sharing with other house members. Turns out host's son and son's wife both live in this house... and they have two utterly filthy cats who reek like shit, in addition to the two clean ones.

    #2 - me and 2 friends rent a small house. Walk in the door and there is literally a binderful of "rules." Don't open the windows - they're fragile. Don't flush anything other than TP - the pipes are centuries old. Kitchen is infested with ants... over the next two days, we realize there are ants in the bathroom and laundry as well. Obvious they didn't just magically show up. Heat stops working at one point. Seems like someone bought up a shitty old house and is slowly fixing it up with AirBnB money, probably while living in the separate accessory unit.

    These two experiences have convinced me that AirBnB is a sloppy mess, where semi-functional hosts do the bare minimum they can and use the threat of mutual bad ratings (since renter ratings matter) to avoid word getting out. I am not surprised at all that some hosts are possessive and distrusting or just plain creepy and have cameras. I would never, ever rent a place that had disclosed cameras, and if I found undisclosed cameras spying on me I would do far worse than complain to AirBnB.