91–100 of 138 posts
Title was edited from the original to censor the mention of Airbnb (a YC company)? Really, Dang?
I wonder if integrity will win out.
You can then search for them and simply place some cloth on it? Might be more legal.
Title was edited from the original to censor the mention of Airbnb (a YC company)? Really, Dang?
I am surprised this is still holding up.
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).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US is a fucked up place because they want to make sure a babysitter doesn't shake their baby to death or a housecleaner doesn't break or pocket something without admitting it? Hyperbole much?
A camera doesn't stop either of those things, it just shows them happening.
Edit: also, cameras don't have to be secret. Knowledge that they're being recorded can often stop it happening the first time.
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…
You're a plumber in my house. I feel like I fully have the right to watch you as you repair my plumbing. You're a babysitter in my house. Babysitting my hypothetical baby. I feel like I would have the right to watch over that baby's treatment in someone else's hands. If you aren't going to let me watch over the quality of your services, I would just find someone else to provide those services. At some point, once we…
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.
Non technical people are going to run shell scripts?
-edit- oops, didn't see the other comment to the parent comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hrmf, and your sentence isn't a hyperbole? I mean, if we extend your logic, we should monitor everyone at all times because someone might just accidentally do something to hurt your child right? You never know why an extremely rare event like you mentioned could happen.
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?
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…
On the other hand if the homeowner or the insurer wished to SUE someone for disabling the security system and thereby facilitating the loss of property, that someone would most likely be fucked. Civil liability doesn't require the accused to be the sole cause of the damage; one can be a contributory cause and still get roasted for huge damages. IANAL and this comment is not legal advice
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This particular script is not really a jammer in the traditional sense. It's simply a de-auth command to a specific device on a specific network. So with a little care you could ensure you were only dropping the indoor cameras.
The FCC considers sending deauth packets "jamming" according to https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-15-113A1.pd...
The FCC considers sending deauth packets to networks you are not supposed to be in control of jamming.
So, still a bad thing here, but not quite the same reason.