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

61–70 of 138 posts

Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras

#61

Post by hughdbrown »

maxerickson wrote: post #51
scurvy wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, but it's the illegal rentals which have made AirBnB successful and led to its giant valuation. There were legal rental sites before AirBnB, but none rose to such heights. AirBnB got rich by flaunting the laws on most of their listings.

Flaunt roughly means to show off. I think you mean flouting the law. (edit: Nevermind, I see flaunt has both meanings)

The second meaning is an error, really, and gets flagged with usage notes.

"4. The use of flaunt to mean “to ignore or treat with disdain” ( He flaunts community standards with his behavior) is strongly objected to by many usage guides, which insist that only flout can properly express this meaning. From its earliest appearance in English in the 16th century, flaunt has had the meanings “to display oneself conspicuously, defiantly, or boldly” in public and “to parade or display ostentatiously.” These senses approach those of flout, which dates from about the same period: “to treat with disdain, scorn, or contempt; scoff at; mock.” A sentence like Once secure in his new social position, he was able to flaunt his lower-class origins can thus be ambiguous in current English. Considering the similarity in pronunciation of the two words, it is not surprising that flaunt has assumed the meanings of flout and that this use has appeared in the speech and edited writing of even well-educated, literate persons. Nevertheless, many regard the senses of flaunt and flout as entirely unrelated and concerned speakers and writers still continue to keep them separate."

Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras

#62

Post by JabavuAdams »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #23
ck2 wrote: post #2

Except a $10 spare smartphone can be turned into a wifi camera very easily. So it only works if they are using one of those two off the shelf cameras.

Are there any guides to doing this? We're about to have a baby, and don't want to drop a few hundred bucks on a baby video monitor system - I'd rather just ziptie a phone to the shelf above the crib.

Q: Why do you want a baby monitor?

We got one as a gift, but hardly used it. Of course both my kids are little Darth Shnorkulas.

I just can't really think of a scenario where the monitor helps. I mean I've had those panicked moments where I'm like "Is my kid dead, and I've just been sitting here playing computer games?" But either get up and check, or just keep playing. They almost never die.

Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras

#63

Post by Dylan16807 »

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…

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.

Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras

#64

Post by arca_vorago »

mschuster91 wrote: post #17
mapgrep wrote: post #15

Cool but some questions on the command line args: Call be dumb but I have no idea what my wireless NIC is called and that's the first arg to the script. How do I find out the handle for my wireless network card (I didn't even know it had a name), but also does anyone know why the script can't self detect that? Don't most people only have one? Ditto for the SSID, couldn't the script just figure out what SSID I'm conne…

On Linux, run ifconfig as root. The problem is that there's no naming convention for NIC names. Some systems use ethX for both wired and wireless systems, some ethX/wlanX, and some use wlx-(macaddress) unique name.

Just heads up ifconfig is considered deprecated and ip addr show is the correct command on many modern distros.

Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras

#65

Post by DanBC »

JabavuAdams wrote: post #62
pavel_lishin wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any guides to doing this? We're about to have a baby, and don't want to drop a few hundred bucks on a baby video monitor system - I'd rather just ziptie a phone to the shelf above the crib.

Q: Why do you want a baby monitor? We got one as a gift, but hardly used it. Of course both my kids are little Darth Shnorkulas. I just can't really think of a scenario where the monitor helps. I mean I've had those panicked moments where I'm like "Is my kid dead, and I've just been sitting here playing computer games?" But either get up and check, or just keep playing. They almost never die.

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.)

Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras

#66

Post by maxerickson »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #59
maxerickson wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty fucked up. I wasn't insulting a strawman, I was pointing out the mindset that thought the camera was saving babies lives. (which obviously they aren't, they are documenting instances where vetting the sitter fails, not keeping marginal sitters in line)

A camera can find mistreatment before it turns critical, and then the sitter is replaced. That is protecting the baby's health, which sometimes reaches the level of saving lives. Your logic only works if camera footage goes unwatched until the day the babysitter exits the business. Edit: And that 'thin line' remark is 100% a strawman. I don't know how you can admit it isn't the "intended meaning" and yet claim it's n…

The statement about the intended meaning is there in an attempt to avoid this conversation. I was not putting the argument in their mouth, I was being bombastic in my criticism of their phrasing. If I was raising it as a serious argument, you are right, I probably wouldn't try to undermine it 10 words later.

Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras

#67

Post by JabavuAdams »

DanBC wrote: post #65
JabavuAdams wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Q: Why do you want a baby monitor? We got one as a gift, but hardly used it. Of course both my kids are little Darth Shnorkulas. I just can't really think of a scenario where the monitor helps. I mean I've had those panicked moments where I'm like "Is my kid dead, and I've just been sitting here playing computer games?" But either get up and check, or just keep playing. They almost never die.

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-improvement-minded parents actually leads to a shitty child-rearing experience that produces somewhat shitty children, rather than a more laissez-faire approach. Crying is like the weather. We don't always have to fix it.

Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras

#68

Post by hueving »

scurvy wrote: post #39
hannob wrote: post #33

Beside the legal issues I fear that this is a risk in a way that it could create a false sense of security. I.e. non-technical people thinking "this will make sure I'm not filmed" while this isn't the case. There can be cameras not affected by the script, cameras with cables, cameras with their own storage etc. pp. Of course everyone here will say "that's obvious", but I'm not sure this is obvious for everyone.

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."

Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras

#69

Post by dheera »

userbinator wrote: post #29
dheera wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stepping aside from legality, and speaking purely from ethics, there's a big difference between "hiring someone to provide a service for your own private home" and "renting out a temporary place of residence for someone". Ethically speaking I'd say it's completely okay to monitor the former, whether that service is a plumber or a babysitter, and whether the monitoring is done with a camera or your own human eyes. Tho…

I'd say that if you're renting to someone else, it's still your property so you should be free to monitor it, but not disclosing the presence of cameras or other monitoring devices should be illegal.

Again, legality aside, even if it were legal, I'd say it's unethical to do so without consent or at the very least, prior notice.

Re: Detect and disconnect WiFi cameras

#70

Post by rdancer »

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…

Even more clearcut, all the cameras in all the neighbouring flats get disabled (this is actually the reason why jamming is illegal -- EM radiation doesn't know to respect property boundaries).
Post reply on HN