Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

War Driving Version 2.0 182

Posted by timothy from the community-access-television dept.
asv108 writes: "There is an interesting article in the New York Times about the popularity of wireless cameras from X10 and how easy it is to easedrop on the feeds with relatively inexpensive equipment from up to a 1/4 mile away." I wonder if they're doing the things the X10 ads imply they might be doing.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

War Driving Version 2.0 More

War Driving Version 2.0

Comments Filter:

  • X10's ad campaign (Score:4, Funny)

    by sammy.lost-angel.com ( 316593 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @01:52PM (#3335582) Homepage
    Wasn't this the point of all those annoying X10 ads? :)
    • next time you see the ad click on it and go to their site. on their page theirs a link that will give you a cookie that prevents the ads from apearing. id tell you exactly what the site is and where the thing on the site is, but since i dont see the ads anymore, i cant find out. i think its on their faq, but im not sure. i just know its there.
      • It's hidden pretty well, but I found it here: http://www.x10.com/x10ads.htm [x10.com].
      • from what they say when you go to that page...
        • If you know what you're doing, you can just edit the cookie to expire in 2099
          • Actually, that's not the case at all. 32-bit unix-based browsers (mozilla, opera, netscape, konqueror, etc) cannot have a cookie last beyond January of 2038, due to the fact that time is represented with 31 bits, and only the times between 1970 and 2038 exist in the most commonly used functions.

            Operating systems that don't use a defective time model by default can accept a Max-Age on a cookie of a full 32-bit range, and save that expiration date in a non-limiting format. This allows those browsers to expire a cookie up to 136 years after the moment it was set, and that's just following the spec. If the operating system doesn't have a broken time model, one should actually be able to modify that further, beyond what is possible with in the specifications laid out by RFC 2019.

            Thus, in no case is 2099 the last year that you can use. It's either 2038, 2138 or infinite.

  • i think that if it wasnt for the ads, the idea of eavesdroping with the x10s might not be so prevelent. imho

  • Sigh... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13, 2002 @01:53PM (#3335585)
    Don't you just love how uninformed the general population is?

    After X10 spends all this money selling such an easy to use product, some dumb ass journalist stumbles accross the fact that

    [GASP] These things are really easy to use!!!

    And they work so well, they are really easy to use!!! by anyone!!!

    OH MY GHOD!!! It's one channel garage door openers all over again!!

  • Implications. (Score:5, Funny)

    by saintlupus ( 227599 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @01:54PM (#3335589)
    I wonder if they're doing the things the X10 ads imply they might be doing.

    Yeah, because hot chicks in skimpy outfits love guys with nothing better to do than fuck around with obscure protocols.

    That's one of the many reasons RMS gets all the ladies, right?

    --saint

  • War driving my arse? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I bet they'll suddenly be more car accidents, with bored students driving round trying to pick up 'dodgy' webcams

    They're again pr0n driving wouldn't have the same 'ring' to it (oops excuse the pun)
  • When told of the novel form of high-technology prying, Professor Fishman said, "That is astonishing and appalling." But he said that wiretap laws generally applied to intercepting sound, not video. Legal prohibitions on telephone eavesdropping, he said, were passed at the urging of the telecommunications industry, which wanted to ensure that consumers would feel safe using its products. "There's no corresponding lobby out there protecting people from digital surveillance," he said

    wonderful.

    and of course, no one is running to plug the legal hole.

    • Re:dumb law, bad law (Score:4, Insightful)

      by OverCode@work ( 196386 ) <overcode.gmail@com> on Saturday April 13, 2002 @01:59PM (#3335620) Homepage
      The notion that legislation banning certain electronic devices (800 MHz receivers) somehow protects people from eavesdropping is patently absurd.

      -John

      • Re:dumb law, bad law (Score:5, Informative)

        by dattaway ( 3088 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @02:13PM (#3335673) Homepage Journal
        The one I got from X10 runs at 2.4GHz. These things are like visual CB's or walkietalkies.

        All you need is the receiver to pick up a very nice picture and the range is incredible. Its too easy to fashion a crumpled up piece of aluminum foil around the antenna to concentrate the signal for dramatic range increases across the city.

        Pass laws against receiving these? That's like banning the receive mode on CB radios. Its pretty much public airspace. Its an anarchy that people need to learn how to use if they want any privacy.

        • Re:dumb law, bad law (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ethereal ( 13958 )

          Yep, that's some good common sense thinking, there. Which will last until some industry or the FCC gets worked up about it and makes it illegal - just like cell phone scanners. Unfortunately, the law doesn't have to square with common sense, and in some cases goes out of its way to avoid it :)

          The correct solution is technical - just use hard encryption for your signal, and you couldn't care less who's snooping on it. But I wouldn't complain too much if the actual solution just makes receivers illegal; at least such a law would ensure a wide variety of exciting video experiences for those willing to put together their own receivers...

      • The notion that legislation banning certain electronic devices (800 MHz receivers) somehow protects people from eavesdropping is patently absurd.

        Let's not bring patents into this!
    • We don't need a new law for this. You already can't publish a picture of someone without their permission.

      If someone really wants to draft a new law simply for the X10 cameras, go for it. But it seems a little wasteful to me.
      • That can't be right. What happened to the first amendment? (Are you posting from the US?)
      • You can publish all the pictures of someone all you want without their permission, as long as they are taken in a public place. Besides, with the X10 the people that are being taken "pictures" of are the ones doing the publishing, although possibly unknowingly. If anything at all the most restrictive law that should be passed is a simple disclosure on the X10 video packaging stating that it may be possible to pick up the video broadcast of these devices by other people and that they are inherently insecure...

    • Re:dumb law, bad law (Score:1, Redundant)

      by ergo98 ( 9391 )
      It's not a legal hole: It's a technical hole.

  • login id (Score:2, Informative)

    by chocolatetrumpet ( 73058 )
    l. slashdot12345
    p. slashdot12345

    in case you need it

    • Time to mod back down - it doesn't work anymore.

    • You know, I really wonder what's taking the NYTimes (and other "freereg" sites) so long to implement unique login enforcement? Porn sites have been using this kind of protection (such as PennyWize [pennywize.com]) for years to redflag accounts where multiple IP's per time period share the same account.

      Maybe they're not hurting enough yet?

      --

  • The ads are actually made from images the company got by eavesdropping on their customers. Ha ha.

  • no no no (Score:5, Funny)

    by nomadic ( 141991 ) <nomadicworld@ g m a i l . com> on Saturday April 13, 2002 @02:01PM (#3335625) Homepage
    I wonder if they're doing the things the X10 ads imply they might be doing.

    You've got it all wrong; X10 is meant to protect and safeguard your family. All those half-dressed women in the ads are simply burglars, removing their bulky clothing so they can slither in through your window and steal your stuff.

  • My favorite quote (Score:5, Funny)

    by usermilk ( 149572 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @02:05PM (#3335642)
    The nanny who decided to take off her dress and clean up the house in her underwear would probably have no recourse"

    If only it was true...

    • Re:My favorite quote (Score:5, Funny)

      by artemis67 ( 93453 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @02:33PM (#3335757)
      The nanny who decided to take off her dress and clean up the house in her underwear would probably have no recourse"

      If only it was true...

      Hmmm, there's something about middle-aged, overweight Venezualan women that just doesn't do it for me....
      • Hmmm, there's something about middle-aged, overweight Venezualan women that just doesn't do it for me....

        It takes a real man to make those women happy.

      • overweight? you must be paying her too well! you need a younger girl, who will spend her few last dollars on a little MDMA, instead of a hoagie.
      • Hmmm, there's something about middle-aged, overweight Venezualan women that just doesn't do it for me

        Thank you! That got the image of Robin Williams in women's underwear, wearing the Mrs. Doubtfire wig and makeup right out of my head.
      • Hmmm, there's something about middle-aged, overweight Venezualan women that just doesn't do it for me....

        Come on, man! Live a little. :)

        Besides, this is Slashdot, right? Probably better than many here can hope for... ;)
    • She could use it on her resume'
  • Was this discovered by people looking for 802.11b APs around the city, encountering interfearance and pulling out an X10 camera reciever?

    -Rusty

  • For a good time... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13, 2002 @02:08PM (#3335661)
    Call 1-800-564-8982

    Press 2, then 5228. Enjoy!

    I'm sure all /. editors should be very familiar with it...

  • Hmm (Score:3, Funny)

    by NiftyNews ( 537829 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @02:12PM (#3335672) Homepage
    It is really easy, but no matter how many I set up around my house I just can't seem to find any hot half-naked women lounging around for me to spy on.

    Maybe I just need to buy more cameras...

  • steal credit card numbers? (Score:3, Funny)

    by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @02:13PM (#3335674) Journal

    In the nearby town of Madison, from the parking lot of a Staples store, workers could be observed behind the cash register.

    I doubt it, but I wonder if the resolution was good enough to read the credit card numbers of the customers, when they put it on the counter.

  • Shit... (Score:3, Funny)

    by AnimeFreak ( 223792 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @02:19PM (#3335706) Homepage
    I thought the ladies come with the cameras. I guess I will cancel my order for those 10 X10 cameras.

    I should have thought over how they would get 10 hot females shipped via courier.

  • Anything on the airwaves... (Score:4, Informative)

    by antirename ( 556799 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @02:22PM (#3335714)
    that's not encrypted can be intercepted. Just like scanning for cordless phones, this is not really that hard. If you don't want someone to see/hear personal information you're transmitting, ENCRYPT it! Of course, most consumers either don't know enough about encryption to use it or just don't care. Then again, if you've ever gotten bored and scanned the wireless phone frequencies you know how inane and boring most conversations are. I'm betting the average "nanny-cam" would be just as boring :)
    • Encryption over the airwaves is highly regulated.

      For instance, hams can't even obscure their signal, much less encrypt it. I'm not sure of the laws on consumer devices, but's it's probably limited to specifically, explicitely defined encryption protocols and then only within the true consumer frequencies. (902-928Mhz) and 2.4Ghz, and also a slice around 40Mhz for old phones and intercoms.

      Maybe someone with more definite knowledge can fill in my gaps.

  • Ugh..Just what the world needs.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Bowie J. Poag ( 16898 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @02:24PM (#3335723) Homepage


    ...More grainy porn featuring ugly nerds humping their bovine "webmistresses"....Yeesh. At $1.39 a gallon, i've got better things to do with a tank of gas than to drive around looking for things I don't really want to see.

    Cheers,
  • "There's no corresponding lobby out there protecting people from digital surveillance," he said.

    Digital eavesdropping? The cameras send an analog signal just like a TV station does. Sheesh..

  • Receiving Equipment (Score:5, Informative)

    by BingoBoingo ( 538071 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @02:29PM (#3335745)
    The wireless video camera, which is heavily advertised on the Internet, is intended to send its video signal to a nearby base station, allowing it to be viewed on a computer or a television. But its signal can be intercepted from more than a quarter-mile away by off-the-shelf electronic equipment costing less than $250.


    Or you could just order a reciever from X10 for $49. Maybe he was buying the 6 camera pack with eagle eye motion sensors and the auto vcr kit for the $250.

    If you order from X10, what ever you do, make sure you give them a disposable e-mail address because they will send you so much spam, you will long for the days when all you received was viagra and porn e-mails.

    -Bingo

    • Re:Receiving Equipment (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Or you could just order a reciever from X10 for $49. Maybe he was buying the 6 camera pack with eagle eye motion sensors and the auto vcr kit for the $250.

      Or you could get a good-quality 2.4GHz receiver for $80 or $90 (the X10 ones are crap) and a small yagi, which lets you pick the things up from at least 12 miles away.


    • Does anyone have any alternate sources for the equipment sold on X10.com? Several years ago, before they even started their pop-up campaign, I placed an order from these guys and called three weeks later to ask where my order was (and why they charged my credit card as soon as the order was placed weeks before). The sales rep I talked to was such a flaming asshole that I vowed never to do business with them again. So, does anyone else (reputable) sell this equipment?

      chris

  • Read the story... (Score:5, Informative)

    by OrangeHairMan ( 560161 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @02:50PM (#3335827)
    ...with out registering with The New York Times:

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=68 &ncid=68&e=1&u=/nyt/20020413/ts_nyt/nanny_cam_may_ leave_a_home_exposed [yahoo.com]

    Orange

  • The obvious answer... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Joseph Vigneau ( 514 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @02:53PM (#3335841)
    In the case of the XCam2, the cameras transmit an unscrambled analog radio signal that can be picked up by receivers sold with the cameras. Replacing the receiver's small antenna with a more powerful one and adding a signal amplifier to pick up transmissions over greater distances is a trivial task for anyone who knows his way around a RadioShack and can use a soldering iron.

    It looks like the obvious answer is to ban Radio Shack [radioshack.com] from selling soldering irons. :^)

  • It Happened To Me (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Keev ( 573393 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @02:57PM (#3335857)
    I bought an X-cam about a year ago to catch neighbors dumping garbage on our property. The camera was mounted upstairs, pointing out toward the street. Imagine my surprise when I turned on the receiver for the first time, and the image I saw was..a view of my own house from across the street! Apparently another neighbor had bought an X-cam, and was operating it pointed in our direction. (This was not entirely coincidence since I'd mentioned the garbage cam to them a few weeks back, but still.. ) This was a distance of about maybe 100 feet. (Also, for some reason, our camera signal did not interfere with theirs.)

  • A start anyway (Score:5, Informative)

    by interiot ( 50685 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @03:04PM (#3335881) Homepage
    From X10 themselves:

    Here's How XCam2 Works [x10.com], and
    X10 cameras and Video Senders use the following frequencies [x10.com]: 2.411GHz, 2.434GHz, 2.453GHz, 2.473GHz. So something like this (the Icom IC-R3) [texastowers.com] might work, as it can quickly scan the frequencies you're looking for and lock on one once a signal is found.

    Also, from the XCam2 manual [x10.com]: "Refer to the setup and operating instructions that came with the 2.4 GHz Video Receiver, Model VR31A or
    VR36A (sold separately) to set up the Receiver.". In other words, one only needs to buy said on of the suggested receivers [x10.com] for $50-$90 and scan those four channels manually.

    • I have a lot of professional wireless video equipment. We do all of our transmits at my work in the 2.4ghz range. It's kind of funny, when a certain local TV station does live remotes from the downtown area, we get their signal on our antennas, reminiscent of finding a backhaul feed in my B.U.D. satellite days.

      Anyways, along with receiving equipment, I have a lot of high-gain Yagi directional antennas. I know the antennas would be good for this sort of thing, but is the x10 receiver just a standard 2.4ghz video transmitter? Should I be able to pick up x10 cameras with my receiver, or even worse, can our broadcasts be picked up by people sitting at home with a cheap x10 receiver?

  • Wait! Let me get this straight... (Score:3, Funny)

    by jerkychew ( 80913 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @03:06PM (#3335896) Homepage
    Are you telling me that wireless devices advertised as inexpensive and aimed at home consumers don't have super-secure encryption built in?? I am shocked and amazed! I mean, If I'm paying 50 bucks for a wireless color video camera, I'd expect some government-level security on those things!!

    Next thing you tell me, it will be easy to eavesdrop on cordless phones and walkie-talkies!!

  • Blatant lie in NYT article (Score:3, Funny)

    by dr_dank ( 472072 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @03:15PM (#3335931) Homepage Journal
    In the nearby town of Madison, from the parking lot of a Staples store, workers could be observed behind the cash register.

    Anyone whos been to a Staples knows that there are NEVER any employees at the registers!

  • A nice turn of phrase in the article (Score:4, Funny)

    by ckd ( 72611 ) on Saturday April 13, 2002 @04:02PM (#3336074) Homepage
    Ads for the "Amazing X10 Camera" have been popping up all over the World Wide Web for months. (Emphasis added.)

    Precisely what people have been complaining about!

  • AUGH! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Hagakure ( 203111 )
    i've been trying to read the NYTimes article but those damned X10 ads keep popping up!!

  • Ooooh, scary (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Caradoc ( 15903 )
    So, someone might go driving by and spot the transmitted image of my mailman? Unless, of course, the ham operator neighbor's keying up again, and obliterating the signal. Or the other neighbor's using his 2.4GHz cordless phone. Or the neighbor on the other side is trying his 802.11 gateway again.

    I have only one question for anyone who's actually trying this - why bother? The picture generated by an XCam is *crap,* and useless for anything but really grainy and poorly-saturated "surveillance" (and half the time it's useless for that, too!)

    The CMOS module that the XCam uses is crap. The optics are plastic (or really crappy glass), and generate some really funky chromatic distortion, so I replaced the module with a Panasonic CCD module. Much better picture, but you still have to deal with the really nasty interference.

    • Re:Ooooh, scary (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dsoltesz ( 563978 ) <deborah.soltesz@gmail.com> on Saturday April 13, 2002 @05:44PM (#3336465) Homepage Journal
      Well, we picked up a set of X10's that were coming with the rotating base. Our purpose was to transmit goofy "web cam" and home monitoring stuff -- video of the bird feeders, the dogs in the backyard (we're curious what they do all day to entertain themselves you see), spy on the cats (how in the hell did they get up there?), and as a cheap image capture for the telescope. It hadn't occurred to us the phone was also running at 2.4 GHz, which interfered with the picture. We unplugged the phone, played for a while, then packed everything up and sent it all back -- we weren't about to give up this particular phone in order to keep the cameras :-D

      I thought the system was worth the $250 bucks or so -- four cameras, robotic base, and other accessories. The images were acceptably clear, there's an interesting selection of cameras available, and the robotic base runs very smoothly and quietly. A decent web cam ususally runs around $50 or $60, so I thought it was worth the money.

      Actually, the robotic base is what pushed us over the edge to finally buy a package. We were looking for a cheaper alternative to the $2500 and up price tags we were finding for such things. Even though the set up didn't work for our house, we think using them at work to "monitor" things like the computer rooms, printers, etc. would be handy. Printers and plotters in particular -- some folks in other buildings waste a lot of time walking across campus checking up on their prints.

  • Heck, I'm still waiting for a good program to use with OSX to do WarDriving with 802.11b. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any decent software out there that'll do anything with my AirPort card.

  • Just what we need (Score:2, Funny)

    by TEB ( 566487 )
    more laws to regulate this and protect the consumer from their own ignorance. What ever happened to being responsible for your own actions? If you choose not to educate yourself on a piece of technology that you purchase then you deserve what you get. As mentioned in the article look at all the clueless 802.11b networks.

    As for the cameras themselves they operate in the 2.4GHz ISM band. That band has always been crowded because it doesn't require a license from the FCC to operate in. There has always been information available to anyone that took the effort to listen in. Only now that it has become popular with the public and you have a chance to see a naked nanny has anyone even noticed.

    Let them eavesdrop on the X10 cameras. We all know that the real danger lies in the alien mind rays that my tinfoil hat stops.

    I had a funny sig but a large corporation trademarked it and sued me into poverty.

    • What ever happened to being responsible for your own actions

      ROFL!!! hahaha you must be from Canada or England, i showed that to the office, we had a good laff, you crazy ppl and your crazy ideas.

      if we were responsible.. who would we sue if we spilt hot coffie? would we sue ourselves? hahah i think not my good fellow.
  • I wonder if they're doing the things the X10 ads imply they might be doing.

    Spying on the neighbors? Probably.

    And you thought you could spy without anyone watching...
  • If you are considering purchasing the IC-R3 [yahoo.com], it does not work well in this application.

    The R3 is an all-band receiver with built-in video, and can receive broadcast TV, ATV, and wireless video, including 900Mhz and 2.4Ghz transmissions.

    Unfortunately, the 2.4Ghz range only covers three of the four XCAM frequencies, and the receiver is deaf as a post above 2Ghz, even with a good antenna.

  • People can set up their own mini TV stations. Most of it will probably be crap, but then that's the same case with the web letting everybody publish idiotic opinions like this one.

  • Somebody's gotta hack up some sw to do this-- don't make me go out and ACTUALLY BUY HARDWARE!
    The horror!

    Get to work! I'll be checking freshmeat tomorrow!

  • If I remember right, The Screen Savers (TechTV) had a little blurb about surfing the area to pick up on stray x10 signals. Good idea, expose this flaw to the world. A quick search of their site turned up nothing. Maybe someone else could provide a little insite. I could be wrong. ~ops

Slashdot Top Deals

There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.

Close