Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras

julianoliver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 138 posts

Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras

#101

Post by kayfox »

patcheudor wrote: post #31
singularity2001 wrote: post #12

And don't forget to report those cameras to the authorities, since in many countries it is completely illegal to film people without their consent (in private places).

Interestingly enough, it's also completely illegal in the US to de-auth a WiFi client which is exactly what this is doing and the disclaimer is hardly accurate: "It may be illegal to use this script in the US." There's no "may" about it. It is illegal: https://www.fcc.gov/document/warning-wi-fi-blocking-prohibit... Two wrongs really don't make a right. Without physically locating the camera you have no idea what is b…

Clarification: Sending deauth packets on networks you control is fine. The issue the FCC is taking is with systems that send deauth packets to other networks.

Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras

#102

Post by djhn »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #63
the-dude wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you expect privacy in the workplace? Yes. And I am in the position to demand it, or take another position. So we get a privacy divide within society: cleaners, waiters etc don't have an expectation of privacy, those higher up do. > Do you expect privacy when you're in a shopping mall? No, everybody can walk in and out at any time. > You're in a building controlled by someone else, no renting going on. What is yo…

I'm not advocating anything. Also note that I might take issue with cameras even in areas where I don't expect to have privacy. In what way do those 'higher up' have privacy? Even a CEO is commonly able to be monitored by HR.

> Even a CEO is commonly able to be monitored by HR.

What do you consider "being monitored" in this context? The CEO answers to the board. Would I be naive in assuming the CEO is so far above HR and IT that monitoring him wouldn't be within their jurisdiction without the board requesting something specifically behind the CEO's back?

Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras

#104

Post by scurvy »

hueving wrote: post #68
scurvy wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironic that you're going to worry about legal issues while renting an illegal hotel room. Considering AirBnB is all about pushing boundaries and outright disregard for the law, the use of this script seems completely apropos.

Different levels of legal violation. Using your logic it would be okay to say, "ironic that your going to worry about legal issues with raping someone when you sped to work."

In your analogy, is it the rape or speeding that's equivalent to forcibly disconnecting a wifi client?

Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras

#105

Post by pavel_lishin »

JabavuAdams wrote: post #67
DanBC wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some children sleep in rooms that have decent sound insulation, and the parents want to know if the child is awake and distressed. (You don't start sleep training a child who is under 6 months.)

Don't worry, you'll know when they're awake and distressed. I tend to let kids cry for at least a minute before intervening, well, unless they're old enough to be asking for help. The alternative is madness and leads to divorce or murder-suicide. EDIT> Actually, I just made that number up. It's all context. My main warning / peeve is that our unrealistic standards of care as modern, educated, intelligent, self-improv…

I agree with you, and hope I'll be strong enough as a parent to not always come running when my kid starts crying.

Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras

#106

Post by JoshTriplett »

izacus wrote: post #98
icebraining wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone is usually being monitored when around children of strangers; we just usually do so with human eyes instead of cameras. Babysitting is an exception, but why should it be?

That's... just not really true. Maybe in some parts of extreme helicopter parenting, but it's really not a global truth. If what you say is true in US then perhaps the upper poster wasn't so wrong about the state of the country :/.

The implication wasn't that parents are watching the kids at all times when they're with others, but that someone was. There are almost no situations in which kids are left alone with someone other than their parents, apart from babysitting.

Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras

#107

Post by brudgers »

hammock wrote: post #75

Title was edited from the original to censor the mention of Airbnb (a YC company)? Really, Dang?

One could make a plausible case there's a bit of click bait in the original title because there is nothing specific to AirBnB in the script; the use of hidden cameras is not part of their business; nor are AirBnB rentals a unique market for hidden cameras.

Anyone who clicks on the link can read the title and decide its relevance to the hack. The primary people whose needs aren't accommodated by the change are those whose interest is triggered by "AirBnB."

Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras

#108

Post by piker »

eyeJam wrote: post #99
bkjelden wrote: post #50

Say someone is renting out a room on AirBNB, and they also have some dropcams monitoring the perimeter of their house. Someone rents the room, and runs this script, disabling the cameras. During the stay, the property is burglarized, and there is no surveillance footage of the crime because the renter disabled the cameras. That seems like an incredibly messy legal situation. Would the renter even be able to exonerate…

To commit a criminal offence, one needs the criminal act (actus reus) and the guilty mind (mens rea). If someone deactivated the security system (actus reus) with the intent (mens rea) of helping someone else burglarize, that would definitely be a crime. However if someone deactivated the security system and without criminal intent helped a criminal, then it would be a much murkier issue. Most countries have various…

(1) According to the article, disabling the wireless camera itself may be a crime in the US. If so, there are a host of ways the participant could face criminal liability under the described facts.

(2) Civil liability does require, generally, causation--cause-in-fact and proximate cause. The cause-in-fact test is a simple "but-for" assessment: but-for our guy disabling the wireless, would the robbery have happened? In this case, yes, in the absence of our guy disabling the wireless, the bad guy would have still robbed the house. Disabling the wireless did not cause the robbery, the criminal was acting independent and without knowledge of the wireless camera's being disabled. Proximate cause is a more complicated legal standard, but since cause-in-fact is missing here, our guy isn't liable, and your second point is probably incorrect.

Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras

#110

Post by morgante »

the-dude wrote: post #58
Dylan16807 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you expect privacy in the workplace? Do you expect privacy when you're in a shopping mall? You're in a building controlled by someone else, no renting going on. What is your rule for when privacy is expected?

> Do you expect privacy in the workplace? Yes. And I am in the position to demand it, or take another position. So we get a privacy divide within society: cleaners, waiters etc don't have an expectation of privacy, those higher up do. > Do you expect privacy when you're in a shopping mall? No, everybody can walk in and out at any time. > You're in a building controlled by someone else, no renting going on. What is yo…

> Yes. And I am in the position to demand it, or take another position.

Really? I'm a software engineer and I certainly don't expect my employer to not look at me when I'm working.

Most people don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy at their office, including "higher ups."

Post reply on HN