Device Boots Drones, Google Glass Off Wi-Fi 184
An anonymous reader writes: Amid the backlash against spy-eye drones as well as wearable cameras like Google Glass, one company is building a device to fight back. The Cyborg Unplug actively scans for drones or Google Glass on a local wireless network and blocks their traffic. They're billing it as an "anti-surveillance system" and marketing it toward businesses, restaurants, and schools. They take pains to note that it's not a jammer, instead sending copies of a de-authentication packet usually sent by a router when it disconnects a device. The device can, however, force devices to disconnect from any network, which they warn may be illegal in some places.
Seems fine to me. (Score:1, Interesting)
No different to someone saying to the device user, "Get off the network." The device is welcome to ignore the request.
And, following a patch, probably will.
Still, the best way to start to deal with Google Glass is to ostracize the users and ban them from all private establishments. In public streets, simply hold a cameraphone in front of them continually.
Re:Seems fine to me. (Score:4, Informative)
You realize that it's a HUD, not just a video camera, right? And, when the video camera is active, there's a light telling you so, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Seems fine to me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you better get used to the "idea of being recorded" because you are almost constantly being recorded when out and about: by surveillance cameras, smartphones, and wearables of all sorts. Your objections to Google Glass logically have nothing to do with being recorded, you just have a stick up your ass about Google Glass in particular. And you better get over it, because you don't have a legal leg to stand on if you don't like being recorded; your only option is to leave and hide somewhere.
Re:Seems fine to me. (Score:5, Insightful)
because you don't have a legal leg to stand on
Why would that be the first thing that comes to mind? I'm not planning on suing someone for recording me. That would be pointless. Just because I have to put up with something to take part in society doesn't mean that I have to like it (or that I wouldn't appreciate places that share my viewpoint on the matter).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, and the benefit of putting up with Google Glass, cell phone cameras, and the like is that you can actually venture out in the street.
That, and the fact that a lot of those personal, private recording devices record police abuse, crimes, funny events, alien landings, daily life, polluters, political and corporate scoundrels, whatever. Photo
Re: (Score:2)
Lose your distaste.
I'm sure that there are things in the world that you find distasteful as well, and it would be just as effective if an anonymous internet poster said to"lose your distaste" for those things. It may happen through long exposure and desensitization, but it ain't gonna be purely by your say-so.
Photography isn't a crime. Neither is staring intensely at someone and refusing to stop if they're clearly uncomfortable or ask you to. That doesn't mean that it's not a dick move.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that photography in public places is similar to voting and free speech. If you find it "distasteful", you effectively find living in a free society "distasteful". Now, you are entitled to preferring totalitarianism to freedom as much as you like, but don't expect people to respect you for it. The "dick move" is entirely on your side. And expect fierce opposition if you're trying to impose your anti-democratic preferences on others.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't expect respect from people that don't know me, but for something to be called a "dick move", it actually
Re: (Score:2)
So do I, but that's not the point. By objecting to public photography, you are objecting to one of the foundations of a free society itself, not merely something that a free society enables people to do. We're talking about an act similar to voting, not to getting an offensive neck tattoo.
And I'm saying it would be good to reflect on that
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you better get used to the "idea of being recorded" because you are almost constantly being recorded when out and about: by surveillance cameras, smartphones, and wearables of all sorts. Your objections to Google Glass logically have nothing to do with being recorded, you just have a stick up your ass about Google Glass in particular. And you better get over it, because you don't have a legal leg to stand on if you don't like being recorded; your only option is to leave and hide somewhere.
Further more,
People intent on recording you for malicious reasons will not be doing so with something as obvious as Google Glass. There are already glasses with small video cameras installed in them that record to a micro SD card or internal storage that are incognito. You will pass dozens, if not hundreds of private security cameras on your daily travels. If being recorded was such a big issue, why haven't Japanese Tourists with their handy cams or tweenage girls recording everything on their iWhatsits
Re: (Score:2)
You could also record someone much less obviously with a smartphone and a dress shirt. Hit record on the phone, stick the phone in the shirt's pocket with the lens facing out, walk around recording people until your microSD card is filled. A 64GB microSD card ($30 or so on Amazon, so definitely not cost-prohibitive) can allow for over 22 hours of recording time. You could theoretically record your entire day with your smartphone in your pocket (assuming you could somehow make the battery last for recordi
Re: (Score:2)
And you better get over it, because you don't have a legal leg to stand on if you don't like being recorded;
That very much depends on where you live. In most of EU there are strict privacy laws that prohibit recording and surveillance in public without an obvious and explicit warning. And yes, that is also a case for things like surveillance cameras on highways, in public and private buildings, in places of business and so on. Also in case of such behavior (recording) you have to be able to get in touch with someone who has additional information about the scope of what is being recorded.
It is true that personal
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, as far as the EU is concerned, you're absolutely right. Of course, Europe has a long tradition of totalitarianism and hostility to individual liberties, democracy, and the rule of law. So that's entirely in character for Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Haha... That's funny. Especially since the whole argument here was that you do not have a way with which you could prevent someone from infringing on your right to privacy. And we do.
All the while you're simply saying that there's nothing that can be done about invasive surveillance, since other individuals are going to take that right from you. And your only counter argument is that if government (chosen by the will of the people, if I may add) is the one protecting you, that has to suck.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, no, it's not "inevitable" at all. There are plenty of totalitarian places around the world where people have lost the right to take pictures; it goes right along with losing the right to free speech. We need to fight that the same doesn't happen here.
Re: (Score:2)
Existing laws are good enough to protect public photography and yet disallow abuses. For example, when you're out and about in public, you have no expectation of privacy. You don't expect that people won't be able to see you walking down the street. So if someone takes a photo of you, you have no grounds to object. However, a person typically does not consent to the area under their clothes being filmed - even if they are out in public. Taking an upskirt shot of someone typically requires positioning y
Re: (Score:3)
Hope you realize that in modern countries, almost every single establishment is currently recording you on tape inside AND outside their establishments. That includes public transit, public streets of all decently-big cities, every single supermarket, theaters, yada yada...
Might want to also be fighting that one off.. ya know, where you know they are recording you - rather than a user that is probably not recording you at all.
(I do not own or use any device like Glass, for the record..)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even need to go this far. Just say, "I'll gladly disable any other cameras on my person if you can find them, too".
Re: (Score:2)
Which is different than my current smartphone. I could hit record, put my smartphone in my shirt pocket (camera lens facing out) and walk around recording people without their knowledge.
But people freak out about Google Glass as if it's something entirely new and frightening.
Re: (Score:2)
What I don't understand is the violent response some people have. Either actual (Person wearing Google Glass has them ripped off their face) or online comments ("If I ever see someone with Google Glass, I'll punch them in the face!"). Replace "Google Glass" with "Smartphone in a shirt pocket" and it would seem totally ridiculous. (e.g. Punching someone because they have a smartphone in their shirt pocket.) However, some people seem to think that, once Google Glass is involved, all social conventions go
Re:Wise up, man. (Score:5, Insightful)
So you care about cameras out in the open you can see.
What about all those security cameras all over the place? That dash cams people put in their cars? The traffic cameras local councils use? The red light/speed cameras?
Not to mention, everyone already has a camera on the phone in their pocket. Not to mention all those people who walk about texting. They may not be texting
THEY MIGHT BE SECRETLY VIDEO TAPING YOU AND INVADING YOUR PRIVACY IN PUBLIC. Quick, grab every phone you see and smash it!
Re: (Score:1)
Security cameras, at least in the EU, are government by laws derived from fairly strict Data Protection directives. They are static, and tend to be owned and controlled by a private establishment, i.e. cannot be used to follow people around. They are there for a particular purpose and tend to be easily identifiable. In any case, there will be warnings about their presence.
Dash cams are the most obnoxious of everything on your list, but they point toward the road, and the owners of vehicles are already aware
Re: (Score:2)
Those cams are just as much a concern. However, it is less likely to end up on the internet but the chance is still there and there is little ghat can be done.
However, with glass and drones, we can do somrthing. So why shouldn't we do something when we can?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget about these [google.co.nz]
Re: (Score:3)
Intent is the key thing, here. If they're all over your shit, then yes they're overstepping their bounds and harassing you. OTOH if they're simply wearing google glass at the same cafe you're sitting in, you've no right to shut t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Privacy in public? Are you sure?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No different to someone saying to the device user, "Get off the network." The device is welcome to ignore the request.
And, following a patch, probably will.
Well, it could also be seen as hacking (of the device) or impersonation (of the wireless hub). If the device properly identifies itself as having nothing to do with the network when sending the disconnect request, then it would be comparable to merely a request. If not, then I see no reason we should encourage the elimination of a feature of our networks by eliminating the disconnect packet from all network code, just so a stupid jammer can work for a month while the code is eliminated.
In the case of a dron
Re: (Score:1)
Personally, I think cell phones are obnoxious and should be jammed in all public places except when the cops show up.
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately, too many people have surrendered or abandoned all other means of distance communicating. We're stuck with cellphones, I'm afraid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seems fine to me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Cell phones aren't for calling the cops. They're for getting video of the cops when they show up.
Roadside assistance, I will grant you, is an appropriate use for cell phones. I think the notion that police are there to protect you or me is somewhat archaic. Did you know that thousands of silencers were part of the DoD giveaway program to metropolitan police departments? Forget about the BearCat armored assault vehicles and other paramilitary hardware. Give me one good reason why any member of any police department would need a silencer. Those are tools for assassins, not for anyone who means to "serve and protect". There's not one possible legal use for a silencer by a member of any police department, yet they are sought out by police departments nationwide, along with .50-cal machine guns, very high-end sniper rifles, tanks and other armored vehicles. There was a news story today of a police force in a small Michigan town with one full-time officer requesting and being given 13 assault weapons with grenade launchers. I'll bet there was some police chief somewhere in the US that heard someone talking about a dub-step gun in Saints Row IV that makes people float up in the air before killing them and immediately put in a requisition to DoD.
Who the fuck are they protecting? And from whom?
Re: (Score:2)
Give me one good reason why any member of any police department would need a silencer.
For protecting the hearing of LEOs and bystanders alike, I guess.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the notion that police are there to protect you or me is somewhat archaic.
I've read your posts before so I know I'm tilting at windmills by trying to engage rationally. But you do know that, Ferguson aside, there are more than 4,000 police/sheriff agencies across the US and that day-in, day-out, 99% of what they do is actually protecting/helping people? Somebody has to respond to 911 calls, and defuse domestic violence incidents. Somebody has to take drunk drivers off the road. Somebody has to investigate rapes, assaults and violent crimes. Those people are the police.
I know a nu
Re: (Score:2)
Terrific people, I know. Now you wanna actually address what I said? Why would any of them need silencers for their guns?
That's not even close to what I said. They don't have to be Bad Lieutenant or Judge Dredd to become someone who tramples peoples rights by just following orders. In fact, I didn't say anything about an
Re: (Score:2)
But ultimately the police in the US do an unpopular job
It used to be that they did a popular job. If the job is unpopular now, one must consider what changes have taken place between then and now.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is they jumped the shark. They went too far and now even law abiding citizens are starting to see them as the enemy. Parents now tell their kids to avoid the cops if they get lost and go find someone with kids instead. They have forgotten their actual purpose. Busting heads, shooting, punishment and locking people up are supposed to be unfortunate necessities for protecting and serving, but too many enjoy that too much and protecting and serving have become the unfortunate necessity.
That's why d
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think cell phones are obnoxious and should be jammed in all public places except when the cops show up.
Or jammed when the cops show up.
Re: (Score:2)
Other than this (FTA):
it also has an "All Out Mode" that would let you knock devices off of any wireless network, not just yours.
The big problem with that is not just that it's not your network, but also that if you switch the device on and it interfered with a drone that's already in the air, it could come crashing down and either seriously hurt somebody or at least cost the drone owner a lot of money. If somebody is spying into your backyard, fine, crash that sucker into the ground (after making sure nobody is around to get hurt), but obviously that's not always the case.
It uses the unique hardware signature that all Wi-Fi devices have to recognize what it's seeing before sending a "deauthentication packet" blocking access.
Okay, so it identifies by mac address,
Re: (Score:2)
Drones do not use wifi.
Re: (Score:2)
Drones do not use wifi.
Unless you're trying to be an ass and split hairs over the definition of "drone," yes they fucking do. Most off-the shelf drones (for the colloquial use of the word "drone," anyway), including the most popular ones like the Parrot AR.Drone and The Phantom use Wifi.
Re: (Score:2)
The big problem with that is not just that it's not your network, but also that if you switch the device on and it interfered with a drone that's already in the air, it could come crashing down and either seriously hurt somebody or at least cost the drone owner a lot of money.
Are you serious about that? That's the worse fucking design in the history of creating things. If it were true.
Do you realize how spotty cell service is in both large cities and rural areas? It's not something you can rely on for anything, other than a dropout at the wrong time.
Re: (Score:2)
Which drone drops out of the sky on loss of radio contact?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually its "you're not allowed to use *any* wifi network in the range of my device because you're using device X which I decided to ban"
That's why jammers are illegal - and this is pretty much a jammer as well if you forget about the technical details.
Sure I dont like privacy invading devices, but Glass and "drones" aren't necessarily used as such. In my experience they're in fact very rarely used as such.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe to connect them to your brain?
If those eyes can be disrupted by a wifi attack then you might as well have just put marbles in the sockets instead. Good Lord, and I thought the "drones crash into people if the wifi disappears" claim earlier was indicative of bad design.
I cannot think of anything worse than an implant with network connectivity to be hacked.
legal loopholes? (Score:2)
It doesn't interfere with radio signals themselves (per FCC). It doesn't interfere with legally protected phone communications (also FCC). It takes advantage of wireless standards that have been adopted, but that themselves have little legal protection.
All it's doing is sending instructions that devices happen to listen to and obey. Bad on the hardware protocols that they allow any equipment to issue these unverified types of com
Re: (Score:2)
It causes intentional interference, which is illegal for a Part 15 device.
Re: (Score:2)
"It doesn't interfere with radio signals themselves"
It causes intentional interference, which is illegal for a Part 15 device.
I don't know about that... by that interpretation, any RST packet sent over Wifi would be illegal.
This is the digital equivalent of saying "Hey You! Yeah, Google Glass with MAC ID XXXXYYYY! Get off my lawn!"
The rule for Part 15 devices (which includes Google Glasses) is that they must accept any signal interference and fail gracefully, and they must not cause interference with other signals using the spectrum.
It doesn't cause any interference with the transmissions, it just sends a message on the transpor
Re: (Score:2)
So, the Cyborg Unplug is made by Julian Oliver. Because, PRIVACY!
Clicking through to his personal site, we're greeted with another one of his creations... the Transparency Grenade. Because, TRANSPARENCY!
http://julianoliver.com/output... [julianoliver.com]
So, what happens if I throw a Transparency Grenade into a restaurant with a Cyborg Unplug running? Do they destroy each other?
HYPOCRISY!!
Re: (Score:2)
The clear intent of the regulations is that various Part 15 devices be able to peacefully co-exist. Rather than trying to claim there's some pedantic loophole, the reality is the FCC will "call a duck a duck," and this is definitely inter
Re: (Score:1)
...and I expected such a response. The reality is that the FCC definitely has the authority to do something about such devices, but it's not Part 15 that gives them that authority. Part 15 is about signals transmission, and is not about transmitted content. Otherwise, any network filter would also fail the Part 15 test if an AP happens to do its own network filtering.
There's no loophole, but throwing the wrong rules at the problem just confuses the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me clarify for you... this will fall into the grey zone of: The FCC will enforce it if they want to.
The primary driver of "if they want to" is which side of the argument has the most money. This company? Or Google?
If they had just targeted drones they might have been ok... but Google? lol... good luck.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nope, not grey zone. It falls in the "Otherwise interferes" category. Illegal no matter how you look at it.
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf
In short.....
An access point can terminate a connection or refuse to accept one.
A wireless client can terminate its own connection.
You can compete for bandwidth to or with an Access Point or other device on the same frequency to do your own communication (but doing so just to block another signal or co
Re: (Score:2)
So, you don't know how WiFi works? Because, it does exactly that - it intentionally mimics the radio signals of an AP to tell a device to disconnect. "Interference" isn't limited to blasting the local area with kilowatts of RF noise. It is, amazingly enough, interfering (especially deliberately) with use of the spectrum which would otherwise operate just fine. Intent (case at hand) and unnecessary emissions (defective or poorly designed devices)
Re: (Score:2)
It is an interesting question though ... is a network protocol classed as interference in that sense?
It's not jamming the signal, it's sending a well-crafted packed which says "piss off".
I have no idea what the regulations are, so it's a real question ... is the regulation worded in such a way that this is covered by it?
Re: (Score:3)
It is
(m) Harmful interference. Any emission, radiation or induction that endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with this chapter.
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/te... [ecfr.gov]
It's pretty much exactly "repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service".
The device's secondary purpose is to violate the FCC licence it uses to operate. They even state "We take no responsibility for the trouble you get yourself into if you choose to deploy your Cyborg Unplug in this mode," because they know it's illegal. (it's primary advertised purpose is to block devices from your own network)
Easiest way to get around it would be to change the MAC address. Y
Great, crash the drone into things. (Score:3)
So a guy goes out in a field with a recreational drone, connected to his laptop by his very own wifi. Someone else decides they doesn't like drones, and punts the drone off the network (and effectively keeps it from reconnecting). It's now no longer under manual control.
Yes a drone should have enough automatic control to keep it from cratering when that happens, but you never know. If the drone falls out of the sky and brains some little kid, or keeps going in a straight line and crashes into a building, whoever severed that manual control is going to share some responsibility (at least moral responsibility).
Re: (Score:2)
I read that as it operates within a particular network.
Unless you go onto their wifi with this, I don't see it doing anything?
Re: (Score:3)
The summary and article say it has a mode that can knock anything off any network. I'm not really sure how that works technically--maybe deauth packets like these always operate outside typical wifi encryption? The implication is that you don't even need to have the access code to a wireless network yourself, to kick someone off of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, the 802.11 standard states "Deauthentication is not a request; it is a notification. Deauthentication shall
Re: (Score:2)
That's right, you don't need to be connected yourself. One trick people use to gather the handshake data they need to crack WPA is to de-auth clients.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, lovely.
(I am fully aware that deauths happen outside of encryption and that's how aircrack and the like work. I was, perhaps naively, hoping this 'product' wouldn't exploit that.)
Re: (Score:1)
That's not going to work. If you've got the drone connected to your laptop via Wifi, unless you want your laptop (and drone) owned in short order, you're going to use an encrypted connection.
And unless this other device can get on the network, it's not going to do any punting.
The entire concept behind this device is that it can keep unwanted devices off of PUBLIC networks, such as those provided by schools, restaurants, hotels, businesses, etc.
So yeah; if someone's flying a drone via a Starbuck's hotspot,
Re: (Score:1)
As stated before, DEAUTH packets fall outside encryption. Unless you have a modified 802.11 stack which encrypts management frames or ignores DEAUTH notices, you would be disconnected despite payload encryption.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, deauth works on encrypted wifi, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Moral responsibility maybe. If you don't feel guilty after you block someone's drone from its control network and it kills some kid, there's something wrong with you as a human being. It could put you in jail though.
I see it as no different that throwing a stick on the ground in front of a skate boarder going down a hill. Nothing illegal about putting sticks on the ground. It's not like you threw it at them. It's their own fault for choosing a mode of transport that can't cope with a stick on the pavement,
Re: (Score:3)
I'll add that it's also an FCC violation and is classed as "Harmful interference" so you'll also be in for a fine up to $100,000 if you do it in USA.
Re: (Score:1)
. It's now no longer under manual control.
Sensible UAV software would then automatically pause for a short period waiting for a possible reconnect, and failing that begin a slow decent process straight down until movement stops, then deactivate all motors.
The only UAVs that don't already do this are absolute cheap ass toys.
Hint: You shouldn't be flying your UAV on WiFi in the first place, 2.4ghz DSSS or FHSS are acceptable. 802.11, no fucking way.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's absurd that you talk about "responsibility", but then hold responsible everybody but the person who actually was irresponsible."
I'm not sure you read my post very well. "Shares some responsibility" is not the same as "holds all responsibility", and that's a terrible analogy. It's closer to interrupting the signal of a model plane, and those are entirely legal and socially acceptable. A pilot generally shouldn't fly it somewhere dangerous, but if you kill that signal, you are making a flying object
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, let's say you walk out to the park with a loaded revolver. You're out there, tossing it over and over again into the air. Someone throws a rock at it, it goes off, shoots someone. Is the rock thrower the only one liable? Or am I liable for a damned air hazard?
I wonder what the all network block is (Score:1)
If I was going to implement something like this I would try the following:
Request for DHCP address detected:
is it from a prohibited MAC address range?
Give a bogus Gateway address (packets from the device are lost)
Else give legitimate address
Re: (Score:2)
its de associating wifi clients
http://code.google.com/p/wifij... [google.com]
this has been around for 10 years now
So... (Score:1)
What's the problem?
What problem does this solve? (Score:3)
Video is stored locally.
All it's going to do is alert the user that something might be going on that is worth recording, so start recording now!
I could see this working ... (Score:2)
... on "your WiFi with no legal problems.
A person can do that right now by disallowing people to ride oh "their" WiFi, now.
One of the places I go to offers "free WiFi." You have to get today's password from them and it's an Internet cafe where they casually monitor the network.
As for doing anything to other people's WiFi? Strictly illegal.
People discussing cell phone interruption are missing the design point. It's a "gett off my network," not a radio frequency jammer.
Rules for Radicals (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're complaining about Google Glass being too invasive, you are a privacy advocate.
If you're complaining about Google Glass being too invasive on Facebook, you're either a moron or a hypocrite.
Seriously, I've noticed a high correlation between people who will tell you that Google Glass is a terrible invasion of their privacy and anyone who wears Google Glass should be ostracized and or beaten to death, and people who well tell you that "it's the Internet stupid, there's no more privacy, so just get over it, princess".
The outrage over Google Glass is an ephemeral cultural phenomenon that will go away when Google Glass (or it's competitors) are actually affordable consumer products. If you're concerned enough about Google Glass to take aggressive actions against users of Google Glass, then you better be mad enough about ubiquitous surveillance to be aggressive about it, too.
God, hipsters are obnoxious, awful human beings.
Re: (Score:2)
God, hipsters are obnoxious, awful human beings.
You mean the people who refuse to stop pointing cameras at people even though they have collectively expressed a desire for privacy because video is cool and it's the youtube age, man, and anyway the government is invading your privacy so what's the big deal anyway, man? Yeah. They're pretty terrible people.
What is the point? They are carrying a phone (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok so the google glass or what ever doesn't connect to your local wifi.... Um and the google glass wearer with their paired LTE phone in their pocket cares why exactly????
And as for a drone connecting to your wifi - i'm assuming we are looking at war-driving (flying I suppose) drones?
Pointless devices that is probably illegal looking for a situation that doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why *they* care. *I* care about such news, because it's the first step towards building a technology stack that will boot those paired LTE phone / glasshole combos from my neighbourhood.
Every useful countermeasure technology has to start with baby steps somewhere. Hopefully more sophisticated jammers and anti glassh
Re: (Score:2)
But how exactly is it a counter-measure?
I've played with google glass and they aren't interesting enough for me to bother with. But I simply can't imagine walking into a starbucks and faffing around with connecting my glasses to the wifi in starbucks. If would be paired with my phone in my pocket. If I was taking photos it would go out through the phone.
To me there is no point to this. This seems like the equivalent of your neighbour putting a wifi password on their network to stop you getting access to
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said in my comment, I view this as the first steps in a suite of countermeasures, not all necessarily through the Wifi protocols.
I can reasonably imagine that stores or restaurants may create internet free zones, where some technology jams your phone in your pocket, as long as you are within the private premises. Kind of like now, where you can only connect to Wifi if you're reasonably clos
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed what I meant. I'm not saying it's not interesting in a "news for nerds way" I'm saying I don't believe this will have any impact on someone using google glass or equivalent, hence they wouldn't care. I don't actually believe this is any form of a counter measure baby step or otherwise.
Also, don't know about the states, but I would be very surprised if jamming wasn't illegal no mater whether it is a private residence or not. I would almost take a stab at being 100% sure that it would be
Useless (Score:1)
If we assume it's relying on MAC matching, then all one has to do is reprogram a different MAC into the device... Or run a bit of software that changes the MAC on the fly...
And it still doesn't take into account that the drones can use 3G/4G connections, or just an onboard DVR. Same deal with someone wanting to record in the establishment - they can have a camera in a button-style lens with a local DVR, or stream it out over a 3G/4G phone connection...
How is it legal ? Are DoS legal now ? (Score:2)
That's a DoS, no more, no less. I don't see how selecting drones or google glasses makes it different ?
If you don't want drones or google glasses on your network, configure your router not to accept them.
I like this (Score:2)
Someone created a device which *has* to engage in active surveillance to force a device which may or may not be engaged in surveillance off it's currently connected network.
I wonder if the device can be configured to kick itself off the network? Someone could bring a 2nd one in, plug it up, and let it actively scan for the 1st device then keep kicking it off.
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see how this will prevent the device from recording.
Re: (Score:1)
People can choose to allow or deny access to people and their devices at will.
Glassholes are gonna find that they are as welcomed as smokers in many places.
Ahh... but they'll be able to stand closer to the air intake vents :D
Re: (Score:2)
In other news disconnected WIFI controled drones start falling from the sky
Re: (Score:2)
>Deauth frames are unencrypted management frames.
Deauth frames are unauthenticated management frames.
There. Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a security flaw, and it's been recognized as such for a very long time. The IEEE devised 802.11w, which protects most management frames after association and authentication when the connection is encrypted. This includes deauth frames. However, it's not often enabled.
Breaking the Law... (Score:4, Informative)
This is arguably a violation of 47 U.S.C. Section 333 (2012), prohibiting willful or malicious interference with radio communications.
Re: (Score:2)
Article is referring to a device that can kick devices off ANY network, not just the operators own. If you have the ability to kick one of my devices off of MY network, how is that NOT a violation of 47 U.S.C. Section 333, and how is my device being on MY network an infringement of the CCAA?
IANAL, and am in the UK, so this is a genuine question!
Re: (Score:2)