That's why you put security cameras on a separate VLAN..
Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras
131–138 of 138 posts
Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras
#132Title was edited from the original to censor the mention of Airbnb (a YC company)? Really, Dang?
The "in that AirBnB you’re staying in" is totally superfluous and is mere outrage fodder.
Not really. The script was written as a result of the recent AirBnB stories about hosts spying on and recording their guests. The relevance is direct and immediate, and taking it out of the title is shameless editorializing.
Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras
#133Very similar to: https://julianoliver.com/output/log_2014-05-30_20-52
Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras
#134Say 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…
The US has lots of "strict liability" offences that don't require mens rea. The mere act is enough to constitute an offence.
Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
When the child is under 6 months you probably don't want to delay when the child is crying. Under 6 months they cry to communicate a need - they're hungry; they need changing; they're in pain; they're cold' they're lonely.
Most people think it's a good idea to address those needs.
Even the people who like sleep training think you probably shouldn't start when the child is under 6 months.
There are a couple of people who think you can start sleep training under 6 months (Ferber; Gina Ford), but even Ferber sets a minimum age of 4 months.
If you are going to go down the "cry it out" route you will want to carefully investigate the different systems. Some of them have been discredited as harmful and cruel. Ferberization (or Gina Ford, they're pretty similar) is about the harshest system that a modern parent could get away with, but you need to be aware that a lot of people hate this method.
Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "in that AirBnB you’re staying in" is totally superfluous and is mere outrage fodder.
Not really. The script was written as a result of the recent AirBnB stories about hosts spying on and recording their guests. The relevance is direct and immediate, and taking it out of the title is shameless editorializing.
The very first vignette in the very first link (http://fusion.net/story/49806/beware-houseguests-cheap-home-...) is about someone who was spied on when staying for free at some person's apartment. Not AirBnB.
Journalists often concoct an "ongoing" narrative to make it sound like there is a big trend when there are only one or two anecdotes. Write a weak article with one example, follow it up with a second article with a second example, then write a third article proclaiming that something is "sweeping the nation," linking to what "we previously reported."
The linked title could just as well have said "when you're staying in a stranger's home," but that doesn't carry as much currency as "AirBnB." I think that's clickbait, albeit subtle.
Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras
#137That disclaimer bugs me. Just admit you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and to consult a lawyer before using on equipment the user doesn't own and control. Instead it misleads the uninformed, and shows the slightly-informed you skimmed half a news article once.
Can you clarify the problem you have with the disclaimer? The important parts of the disclaimer seem to be the lines "this might be illegal, make sure to check, use with caution" as well as mention of de-authing being the potential problem. Those seem to me to be enough for an informed user to be able to do their research and enough for an uninformed user (or those unconfident in their ability to research it) to be s…
Heres why:
> Due to changes in FCC regulation in 2015,
It wasn't a change in regulation. There was an enforcement advisory that the FCC considered interfering with WiFi connections to be interference under 47 USC 333. That's not a new law or regulation, it's just the FCC publicizing that they have already and will take further action over new way to violate a law.
> it appears intentionally de-authing WiFi clients, even in your own home,
The radio spectrum is a public resource, even when it radiates through your home. I can't use a stingray just because the phones are being used in my house either. I can understand why some people might disagree with the public resource nature of RF. But it's neither clear if the author is trying to pick that bone for real, nor am I here to defend that classification. Just pointing it out.
> is now classed as ‘jamming’. Up until recently, jamming was defined as the indiscriminate addition of noise to signal - still the global technical definition.
Jamming is used colloquially to refer to all interference under 47 USC 333. But with a little googling I don't see the FCC using the term "jamming" for this style of WiFi interference. The law is written the way it is because spoofing deauth messages is just one of the many ways to cause interference without "jamming."
> It’s worth noting here that all wireless routers necessarily ship with the ability to de-auth, as part of the 802.11 specification.
I don't think I understand that it's "worth noting." There is a large difference between an access point managing it's clients, and a rogue actor spoofing messages to mislead those clients that the message came from the AP. The fact it's part of the spec is the only reason this tool works at all, and the concept of layer 2 interference isn't particularly hard to grasp, especially when that's the explicit purpose of the tool.
Also:
>The very fact this code exists should challenge you to reconsider the non-sane choice to rely on anything wireless for home security. More so, WiFi jammers - while illegal - are cheap. If you care, use cable.
There are a great many things in my life that someone could fuck up if they wanted to break the law that are much more important than my wifi based home security. Even with this tool, the greatest threats to wifi devices are still lousy wifi performance before interference, and lousy residential internet connections.
I don't need someone with a baseball bat loitering around the parking lots I use to pester me about my car. That doesn't "challenge me to reconsider the non-sane choice" of using a mode of transportation that is just so darn easy to damage with a baseball bat.
Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras
#138That's why you put security cameras on a separate VLAN..
what I was thinking