Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Security

Warspying in San Francisco 282

Posted by michael from the peeping-thomas dept.
hak_fan writes "SecurityFocus has a story on a group of radio hobbiests in San Francisco who occasionally go out warspying for wireless cameras in the 2.4GHz band, using some customized equipment. Their latest expedition turned up some interesting finds."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Warspying in San Francisco More

Warspying in San Francisco

Comments Filter:

  • Ugh. (Score:5, Funny)

    by DarkHelmet ( 120004 ) * <mark&seventhcycle,net> on Thursday January 29, 2004 @10:15AM (#8123101) Homepage
    It's stories like this that make me never want to go naked on webcam ever ever again.

    Not that you slashdotters would want to know such a thing.

  • Interesting. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Scott Lockwood ( 218839 ) * on Thursday January 29, 2004 @10:16AM (#8123103) Homepage Journal
    The most fascinating part of this article to me - was the fact that it's NOT a violation of the wire tap act. It seems video isn't considered snooping. Talk about technology out pacing legislation. I wonder how long before we have one of those sites devoted to "hidden camera" porn? Oh, wait...
    • Ohhhh. Now it all makes sense. That explains a lot of no-audio videos found on Booble.

    • Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sckeener ( 137243 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @10:28AM (#8123206)
      Actually it's been covered in the media. There is one story of a man who setup video cameras all over the house and then sold it. The attic was accessible from the outside, so he'd climb up and swap the tapes in a VCR. There wasn't any sound only video so the most he could be charged with is stealing electricity

      • Re:Interesting. (Score:4, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 29, 2004 @10:31AM (#8123236)
        Umm, that was just a Law & Order on the other night. Law & Order != Real Life. Step outside and take a deep breath of fresh air dude.
      • the most he could be charged with is stealing electricity

        What about trespassing?

      • There is one story of a man who setup video cameras all over the house and then sold it.

        That's dumb. Was this guy a real estate agent? How'd he know some young, nubile (i.e. watchable) couple would move in?

        Grandson: "Okay, grandma, grandpa. Here are the keys to your retirement village".
        Gramps:Okay, son. See ya. Hey honey, wanna try out the four-poster upstairs? Lemme unpack the Ben-gay and I'll see you in the bedroom in an hour!"

        two days later... Guy: Okay, just pop in the video, hit play and

      • Re:Interesting. (Score:3, Informative)

        by mazarin5 ( 309432 )
        If I remember correctly, he owned consecutive properties and rented out one to his friends. There was sound, but since it was his house/equipment it was illegal. They did end up busting him, but it was for secretly recording the woman and her daughter changing at his house when they were invited over to use the hot tub. Because the girl was 15, they got him for kiddie porn.

    • Or the fact (Score:3, Interesting)

      by The Tyro ( 247333 )
      that they are driving around with a police scanner in their vehicle... that's against the law in some states too.

      Ironically, they'd be OK here in Florida... you can drive with a scanner in your vehicle here but only if you're a licensed HAM operator or newsguy. [geocities.com]

    • Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Skorgu ( 704392 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @10:36AM (#8123279)
      It really has very little to do with legistlative sloth. The problem with legislating against this sort of thing is that its so tangled up in the issue of surveillance cameras. If you make videotaping an unknowing or unwilling person in a "public place" illegal, all surveillance cameras are then illegal. The problem is that drawing the line between useful surveillance and spying is so difficult. In this case, the transmissions being intercepted are not encrypted or even hidden. No attempt to keep them private has been made, and the owners/operators have no expectation of privacy. IANAL, but I can't see any way to extend the laws to cover this without being draconian. One other point: voyeur-type hidden cameras are usually beaten in civil court if the voyeur charges money for the video; it may be legal to spy on others without their permission, but selling it is usually a no-no.

    • Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Secrity ( 742221 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @10:38AM (#8123307)
      IANAL It wouldn't be illegal to receive this stuff no matter what the format. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy for transmissions in this band (it is not even intended for communications use). One really cool thing about this band is that no license is required to operate in the band and there are tons of perfectly good 500 to 1000 watt 2.4 MHz magnetrons with power supplies discarded every year -- free for the taking from dumpsters and the sides of residential streets. You can even buy a new 2.4 MHz magnetron with power supply for almost nothing.

      • Re:Interesting. (Score:3, Informative)

        by mangu ( 126918 )
        Magnetrons do not have enough frequency stability for that. However, that would be a nice way to interfere with wireless equipment, if that bothers you in any way. Problem is, make sure to get out of the way before your balls get fried...
    • how could anything "wireless" be a violation of "wiretap" act?

  • Interesting Finds? (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheRealMindChild ( 743925 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @10:18AM (#8123117) Homepage Journal
    If they found some interesting finds, they left them out of the article. They found exactally what you would think they would find... cameras pointed at places in offices... not the hot lesbian orgy that you would hope for. Besides, isnt this a dupe?
    • these are geeks we're talking about, not perverts:
      With a little detective work, MWD will eventually discover that the signal is a directional transmission from the camera to a local TV station that features the feed on its website and in its nightly newscast. His satisfaction at the discovery hints at the real nature of warspying: at least for WMD, the appeal isn't voyeuristic at all -- it's pure geek.
      • these are geeks we're talking about, not perverts
        what are YOU talking about? the words 'geek' and 'pervert' seems mutually inclusive to me.

      • Re:Maybe no lesbian orgies, but (Score:5, Funny)

        by swb ( 14022 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @10:52AM (#8123411)
        With a little detective work, MWD will eventually discover that the signal is a directional transmission from the camera to a local TV station that features the feed on its website and in its nightly newscast.

        So really the trick is to override their feed during the nightly news with more provocative content. It might be amusing to be real subtle about it, such as periodically putting footage from the wrong season or another time of day, CGI-ing the skyline (burning buildings, missing buildings, buildings that aren't really there, etc), using a different city skyline, etc. Just putting the goatse guy on would be a little less interesting.

        Ideally you'd have a reachable PC generating the video, with the ability to remotely switch between the real camera's feed and your feed to keep 'em guessing.

        All the more ironic that "The Conversation" was filmed in SF.
    • These guys could make some serious "dough", by offering their "counter-surveillance" sweeps for a small price.

  • "hobbiests"? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Cyclopedian ( 163375 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @10:20AM (#8123136) Journal
    I didn't know the letter 'y' was taking a break today.

    Where, oh where have all the *hobbyists* gone?

    -Cyc

  • Hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by djrogers ( 153854 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @10:22AM (#8123149)
    From the ./ blurb
    Their latest expedition turned up some interesting finds.
    and from the story
    But just what are the video sniffers picking up? If the San Francisco expedition late last week is any indication, the answer is, not all that much.
    Methinks the reality high-tech peeping tom world is probably quite a bit less sexy than some people's fantasies of it....

    • Dear Slashdot... (Score:5, Funny)

      by ShaggyZet ( 74769 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @10:33AM (#8123260)
      I never thought this would happen to me. I was warspying around Clevland and found myself in a low-rent part of town. I didn't want to stop for long, but I glanced at my equipment while stopped at a red light and saw the most beautiful girl in the world. She must have forgotten to turn off the camera, because the things she was doing.... Well, let's just say it was even more exciting than the goats.cx guy, or the thought of Natalie Portman with hot grits down her pants. I went right up to her place, and secured that camera for her by setting up a linux firewall. But the really good part is, I put in a backdoor for myself!

  • Broadcast privacy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @10:24AM (#8123164) Homepage
    When you broadcast something, you shouldn't expect it to remain private.

    If you want it to remain private, do something.
    Encrypt it, or don't send it out to everybody.

    • Re:Broadcast privacy (Score:5, Interesting)

      by theLOUDroom ( 556455 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @11:52AM (#8123953)
      When you broadcast something, you shouldn't expect it to remain private. If you want it to remain private, do something. Encrypt it, or don't send it out to everybody.

      Yep. That used to be they way it was for all radio broadcasts. It was legal to build a reciever that could recieve anything (DC to daylight), and if you didn't want people listening, you had to encrypt/obfuscate the data.

      Then, some buttmunch decided that cellphones should transmit an unencrypted, analog signal, receiveable by any radioshack scanner. Instead of realizing that someone made a big mistake, the FCC just banned scanners that could receive cell frequencies.

      Of, course, it's still trivial to recieve cell frequencies, but now it's "illegal". And now that everyone is switching to digial anyways, the law is still in place and the precendent has been set. Why bother to design things properly when you can just buy a law?

    • Re:Broadcast privacy (Score:3, Informative)

      by glinden ( 56181 ) *
      Unfortunately, most wireless products on the market ignore security. Baby monitors, wireless cameras, cell phones, etc. should all be encrypted by default, but they're not. Ideally, consumer pressure would force the companies to implement features to prevent snooping, but most consumers don't understand the security and privacy issues with these technologies.

  • interesting finds alright... (Score:5, Funny)

    by I Be Hatin' ( 718758 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @10:24AM (#8123171) Journal
    Their latest expedition turned up some interesting finds.

    From the article:

    A few other cameras pop up, but nothing exciting -- until the financial district, where on the same block as the office cam, MWD's receiver picks up the very freeway camera that marked the start of the expedition. The camera is more than two miles away, while most wireless video cameras have trouble reaching the curb. The appearance of the signal so far from its source energizes the team. "That's definitely the catch of the night there," says MWD.

    So the "catch of the night" is a freeway camera. Woo-hoo! Oh well, at least now I know there are bigger dorks than myself.

    • In Atlanta, you can just go to georgia-navigator.com and view any of hundreds of roadside cameras. It's still frames, but you can easily see how heavy the traffic is.

      FYI: The Radio Shack video sender uses the same hardware as X10's wireless cameras.

      -B

  • Social stigma (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 29, 2004 @10:27AM (#8123196)

    "The problem is, if the cops take an interest in you while you're doing something like this, the only way to get out of the situation is to admit that you're a dork," says MWD. "I'd almost rather be taken back to the station."

    This is why we're losing jobs to India. Indians don't have to worry about looking like dorks because they're interested in science.

  • and found nothing of interest.

  • Wireless Camera Detectors? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Milican ( 58140 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @10:28AM (#8123204) Journal
    Anyone know if the wireless camera detectors they have at Radio Shack (still carry?) work? They were a small cigarette ligher sized detector. Didn't seem to me that it would work all that well...

    JOhn
    • Yes, they actually DO 'technically' work... however, you have to either be VERY close (1 foot or less) from the source of the transmission, or you need to be ready to see it going off constantly due to cordless phones if you set it too sensitive. (Says the guy who worked for Radio Shack for a while). Whenever we saw one of those leave the store, we knew it would be back in a day or two. Think about it... It basically detects all 'strong' radio frequencies in a number of ranges, but it is NOT directional.

  • I call movie rights! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The I Shing ( 700142 ) * on Thursday January 29, 2004 @10:28AM (#8123208) Journal
    This sounds like a good plot starter for a political thriller.

    A college student goes out to look at wireless cameras and witnesses a murder, which is later ruled a suicide by the coroner's office in a massive political coverup. He has the murder recorded on the hard drive of his notebook computer, and shortly after he hands a CD he burned with an MPEG of the murder over to his uncle, a police detective, his uncle is then found dead, another "suicide." Then the kid realizes they'll be coming after him next, and a merry chase ensues.

    Has this already been done?
    • Enemy of the state?
      • Never saw that one, but I just read the description on IMDB and it does sound pretty similar, right down the whole surveillance thing.

        But Enemy of the State was a flop. My movie would succeed because it wouldn't have Will Smith in it.
    • Has this already been done?

      Hmm.. let's see..

      A [innocent person] goes out to [do something not everybody would do, but still peaceful] and witnesses a murder, which is later ruled a suicide by the coroner's office in a massive political coverup. He has [evidence of the murder, possibly in a non-trivial geeky way], and shortly after he [hands the evidence] of the murder over to his uncle, a police detective, his uncle is then found dead, another "suicide." Then the kid realizes they'll be coming after him
    • How about 'Blow Out'. Sound guy captures sound bite of gunshot blowing out car tire, killing important guy (who was with floosy). Other things happen....guy fall for floosy, floosy gets killed at end. Good cast too, John Travolta, Karen Allen (?), John Lithgow (excellent!).

    • Re:I call movie rights! (Score:2, Informative)

      by gkuz ( 706134 )
      All you geeks would love an old Coppola movie starring Gene Hackman as a surveillance expert who hears something he's not supposed to; it's called "The Conversation". I'm sure you can rent it if you hunt around.

      The movie holds up well, even though it's technologically dated with all the analog tape recorders and stuff.

  • Quote of the Day (Score:5, Funny)

    by sysadmn ( 29788 ) <{sysadmn} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday January 29, 2004 @10:28AM (#8123209) Homepage
    This has got to be the quote of the day:
    The problem is, if the cops take an interest in you while you're doing something like this, the only way to get out of the situation is to admit that you're a dork," says MWD. "I'd almost rather be taken back to the station."

  • WMD? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "His satisfaction at the discovery hints at the real nature of warspying: at least for WMD, the appeal isn't voyeuristic at all -- it's pure geek."

    He starts off as Massive White Dude (MWD) and ends up as Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Interesting... Terrorist.

  • Massive White Dude? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Equuleus42 ( 723 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @10:32AM (#8123246) Homepage
    I don't know what's funnier -- the fact that the warspying guy's name was "Massive White Dude" (or "MWD" for short), or the fact that the reporter misspelled it as "WMD" in the second to last paragraph...

  • Uh huh... (Score:2, Redundant)

    by Dark Lord Seth ( 584963 )
    Their latest expedition turned up some interesting finds.

    ... After which they started their own porn site.

  • War prefix now means roaming? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 29, 2004 @10:55AM (#8123433)
    Wardialing was coined after Matthew Broderick did that activity in the 1983 movie War Games. It was a little bit clever to mutate that into wardriving, but that took the prefix right up to the edge of Fonzie's ramp.

  • The hairs on the back of my neck.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by boris_the_hacker ( 125310 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @10:56AM (#8123435) Homepage
    ... just stood up all at once. The worst thing was that out of all my dvds, the one at the top of the pile was Enemy Of The State. Great film, although this story just make you wonder how many electronic eyes are watching you....

  • Uhm (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 29, 2004 @10:56AM (#8123437)
    But MWD doesn't relish trying to explain that to the San Francisco Police Department. Even when he's not warviewing, he keeps a police scanner running in his car, to "keep an ear on the pulse on the city," and tonight it provides some comfort by not squawking out calls about strange men carrying alien-looking ray gun equipment, or driving slowly and suspiciously though the city's varied neighborhoods in an ominous black '64 Volvo.
    isn't it highly illegal to have a police radio scanner in a moving vehicle? I thought it was only legal to posess them if it was in a fixed location like your living room

    *oops*

    • Re:Uhm (Score:2, Informative)

      by jim_deane ( 63059 )
      isn't it highly illegal to have a police radio scanner in a moving vehicle? I thought it was only legal to posess them if it was in a fixed location like your living room

      Not necessarily.

      Some states do not have such restrictions on scanner use (or state explicitly that it is illegal only if used in the commission of a crime).

      A *lot* of states also explicitly exempt amateur radio operators. Even states that do not may not be able to support their case against an amateur radio operator in court if the "sc

    • Re:Uhm (Score:2, Informative)

      by MadHungarian1917 ( 661496 )
      If you are a _licensed_ ham radio operator the scanner bans do not apply in 99.9% of the cases. There are some exceptions especially in the washington DC area.

      There are also areas in maryland where transmitters are barred as well and along a certain portion of the canadian border you are limited in modes/power

    • Legal for licensed amateur radio operators (Score:4, Informative)

      by tweakt ( 325224 ) * on Thursday January 29, 2004 @12:50PM (#8124569) Homepage
      isn't it highly illegal to have a police radio scanner in a moving vehicle? I thought it was only legal to posess them if it was in a fixed location like your living room
      It depends on the state. However "in 1993 the FCC preempted all restrictive state and local laws and ruled (FCC PR 91-36 [arrl.org]) that it is legal for licensed amateur radio operators, who have a copy of their FCC license in their possession, to operate - anywhere in the USA - an amateur radio transceiver capable of receiving police and other emergency services frequencies in their vehicle." -- http://www.rarchams.org/scanlaw.htm [rarchams.org]

  • same as baby monitors (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shlomo ( 594012 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @11:02AM (#8123482)
    This is exactly what happens with your typicall baby monitor. People dont realize they are broadcasting their life to all their neighbors.
    In fact thats what happened to me, i bought a monitor, but its useless, since all the channels are being used by my neighbors.

    At least I have something to do if I'm ever bored.
    Its like a baby crying radio channel :)
  • Unless you are going to build your own hack it seems that for the less technically inclined of us cash will be king. To get in the game the article suggests the two best options. Any feedback on which one gives the most bang for the buck?

    ACN53292
    http://www.actiontvusa.com/ACN53292.ht ml

    and the

    Icom IC-R3
    http://www.texastowers.com/icr3.htm

  • "warviewing"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @11:06AM (#8123519)
    MWD first went warspying (he prefers the neutral term "warviewing")

    What the hell is this crap? It's NOT neutral. I can see it now...

    Reporter: "So Mr. Car Thief..."
    Thief: "Please. I prefer the term Vehicle Posession Transferal Agent".

    You ARE spying. You're looking where you shouldn't; that's spying, just like eavesdropping on 802.11b is spying; you know your victims are probably not expecting you to be looking, and you know it's wrong. If your neighbor has a 8-foot high shrub, and you stick your head through it to see what's going on in his yard, that's considered intrusive by most of the world unless you know 'em pretty well. It's not considered "viewing". If you put a mirror over the top of the stall in the bathroom to look at the guy next to you, that's spying. Not "viewing".

    Why do I get the image of Comic Book Guy reading about MWD? Even the "please, call me..." crap is the same.

    • Re:"warviewing"? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by thentil ( 678858 ) <thentil@yahoo.cOOOom minus threevowels> on Thursday January 29, 2004 @11:36AM (#8123791)
      It is *not* spying. In both your bathroom example and neighbor-shrub example, the bathroom wall and shrub are erected to prevent viewing; thus, circumventing that could be 'spying'. Walking or driving around picking up unencrypted, broadcasted video signals is not circumventing anything. If they had been doing decryption, then it could be spying; the way it is, they're merely sightseeing. Don't want people admiring the architecture of your house, or your landscaping skills? Erect a wall/shrubbery. Don't want people viewing your nanny-cam? Encrypt the signal. Otherwise, you're putting that signal out there for sightseers.
    • `If you put a mirror over the top of the stall in the bathroom to look at the guy next to you, that's spying. Not "viewing".`

      I wouldn't call it spying, I'd call it sick.

      A good friend of mine was working for a chain store (*coughcraftsmancough*) and went in to the restrooms to change for work. The guy in the stall next to him slid over a piece of toilet paper with the words "tap toe for suck" scrawled on them.

      ew.
    • You ARE spying. You're looking where you shouldn't; that's spying

      You broadcast something into the ether we all share, I collect it. Im not immoral or a criminal because *you* chose to bcast it.
  • I got one of the first-generation X-10 cameras free in a promotion a few years back. I hooked it up and played around with it for awhile, and then started wondering what was to prevent someone with the same receiver from intercepting my signal. With that in mind I put the gear back in the box and haven't touched it since. Looks like I made the right move.
  • "The problem is, if the cops take an interest in you while you're doing something like this, the only way to get out of the situation is to admit that you're a dork," says MWD. "I'd almost rather be taken back to the station."

    Wow, imagine the interrogation this guy would get:

    Cop: What's your name, son?
    MWD: Massive White Dude.
    Cop: I see that, but what's your name? And what's with this wire and little television?
    MWD: It's, uhh... top secret, government stuff. I need to speak with Special Agent Dana Scu
  • Generally speaking I believe that you only have the right to privacy if you have a 'reasonable' expectation that your actions cannot be viewed/heard by others.

    For instance, with respect to attorney client privledge, if you talk to your lawyer in a public place and yell your conversation to the word, you waive your priveledge. If you talk to him behind closed doors in your office, you don't, even if somebody is eavesdropping.

    I realize that Joe Everybody probably doesn't realize that unencrypted radio wa

  • Encrypted Wireless Video (Score:4, Informative)

    by WC as Kato ( 675505 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @11:43AM (#8123846)
    This is exactly the reason why I opted to use a hard wired camera for my home. Before I hooked up the camera, I search all over the place for an encrypted wireless camera. I could not find a single one, not even a high priced professional camera that James Bond would use. It certainly seems like this kind of product would exist. Anyone know of any encrypted wireless video cameras?

    • Re:Encrypted Wireless Video (Score:3, Informative)

      by BJH ( 11355 )
      The Panasonic KX-HCM170 can do encrypted video (40/128-bit WEP, but it's better than nothing).

    • Re:Encrypted Wireless Video (Score:5, Informative)

      by macemoneta ( 154740 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @03:38PM (#8126599) Homepage
      The D-Link DCS-1000W is an Ethernet/802.11b wired/wireless camera than can use 128-bit WEP. It's only $200 at CompUSA (the lowest price I could find, even comparing mail order when I purchased it). It has an on-board web server and can even email/ftp date/time stamped images when motion or switch closure is detected (or time based). More here:

      http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=41

      If you'd like to use it as a time-lapse security camera, I have a script on Sourceforge:

      http://sourceforge.net/projects/dcs1000w

  • 64 Volvo pics? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Zeno ( 17075 )
    Who can find pics of his 64 Volvo? I'd rather see those.

  • They found one watching a parking booth. (Score:3, Funny)

    by trailerparkcassanova ( 469342 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @12:52PM (#8124608)
    Damn, I could watch that for hours. Maybe next week they can find a janitor waxing a floor.

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close