Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Hardware

Cheap Video Sniffing 162

Posted by timothy from the what's-on-channel-five dept.
HadleyRipleyArgusRockefellerDog writes "Want to see what other people find interesting enough to watch with an X10 Camera? Radical Software Group has a page describing how to build a "video sniffer". They say they picked up their first image after walking half a block in NY city. X10's work on the same frequency as 802.11b. .. anyone want a combo WiFi/Video sniffer for Christmas?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cheap Video Sniffing More

Cheap Video Sniffing

Comments Filter:

  • Don't you know? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Maradine ( 194191 ) * on Sunday May 04, 2003 @11:20AM (#5874734) Homepage
    "Want to see what other people find interesting enough to watch with an X10 Camera?"

    I already know. A pool, from left to right, and then this hot twenty-something in a blue dress, up and down.

    Really, what else is there?

    • Sociology hat (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The interest expressed here in building one of these just goes to show you that that its not just the RIAA, MPAA, goverment, spyware, interested in using all this cool new technology to spy on people. Joe Sixpack wants in on the action.

      great.

  • Year Old Dupe (Score:4, Informative)

    by Delphix ( 571159 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @11:21AM (#5874741)
    Here. [slashdot.org]

  • Legal? Moral? (Score:5, Funny)

    by SilverSun ( 114725 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @11:23AM (#5874754) Homepage
    I guess if I put my bedroom on air, I can't expect people to look away.

  • erm...i'll give it a miss (Score:4, Funny)

    by crocodill ( 668896 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @11:23AM (#5874757)
    knowing what most people seem to get webcams for from connecting to random mofos on things like iphone and netmeeting, i don't think i'll be doing this anytime soon.
    • knowing what most people seem to get webcams for from connecting to random mofos on things like iphone and netmeeting, i don't think i'll be doing this anytime soon.

      We don't want to *talk* to the babes, but *see* them. Big difference. Turn the volume off.

      Less Chatter == More Splatter

    • Re:erm...i'll give it a miss (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Maybe you'd be better served by understanding the product. It's not a webcam. It's a wireless camera, that normally broadcasts to a reciever on a tv or monitor somewhere. Yes you can set it up using software as a rudimentary snap shot taking camera, but it's not a webcam. We aren't THAT stupid.

  • Mirror (Score:5, Informative)

    by Neophytus ( 642863 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @11:23AM (#5874758)
    Images are a tad slow for my liking, so here is a mirror [myby.co.uk].

  • Ummm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Craig Maloney ( 1104 ) * on Sunday May 04, 2003 @11:24AM (#5874759) Homepage
    No, I'd rather leave all that X10 spycam action to my imagination, thank you very much.

    Looking at baby cribs, kids rooms, and garden sheds just isn't my thing, thanks.

    • Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Pike65 ( 454932 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @11:48AM (#5874882) Homepage
      Amen.

      A quick trudge of any *shudder* blog site is more than enough to convince me that everyone else leads a life as boring as mine.

      Of course, it may just be that the people with interesting lives are out living them. Now there's a thought . . .

    • Re:Ummm... (Score:3, Funny)

      by zurmikopa ( 460568 )
      "Looking at baby cribs, kids rooms, and garden sheds just isn't my thing, thanks."

      Now we know what Michael Jackson's new hobby is.
    • I picked up a cheap hard wired color ccd camera, and now instead of a blank screen on a turned off TV, I have a video feed of the back yard, and the bird feeder, and wild life action.

      It is like an extra window in the house.

  • umm, I'm not so sure (Score:4, Funny)

    by fjordboy ( 169716 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @11:24AM (#5874762) Homepage
    I don't see how this is any cheaper than sticking a vhs up to your nose and inhaling.

    Video sniffing...next thing we're gonna have an article on dry erase marker sniffing.
    • "Video sniffing...next thing we're gonna have an article on dry erase marker sniffing."

      That would truly be useful because I used to do that until I forgot how to take the caps off the... what was I saying again?

  • Encryption (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SonicTooth ( 561342 ) <willisNO@SPAMirmak.org> on Sunday May 04, 2003 @11:26AM (#5874766) Homepage
    Does X10 have encryption? Espiecally if these things are being used for security cameras. Or private sex parties either way, i wouldn't want people looking in.

    • Re:Encryption (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Fulkkari ( 603331 )
      Does X10 have encryption?

      I tried to find any specs about that, but couldn't find any. I however doubt that there would be any encryption, because all they actually did according to the page was to combine a screen and a X10 reciever. Or am I missing something here?

      You could however check the article in 2600 [2600.com] about "warspying" which said to have inspired them.

    • Re:Encryption (Score:5, Informative)

      by AmigaAvenger ( 210519 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @11:44AM (#5874861) Journal
      no encryption, just a straight 2.4 ghz analogue signal, easy to pick up with any equipment capable fo getting up there...

  • Cool tv though (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by JVert ( 578547 )
    Anyone know where I can get these 4" tvs? Since this article is at least a year old i'm expecting sub $100. Course a 4" touchscreen i'd pay $100.

  • Security camera? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fulkkari ( 603331 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @11:31AM (#5874788)
    After walking for about a half a block across 13th Street, we got a picture. It was a security camera picture of some interior hallway. Must have been in a nearby building.

    Why in the hell would a security camera be wireless? And this thing doesn't even seem to be encrypted!

    • Re:Security camera? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Vlad_the_Inhaler ( 32958 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @11:39AM (#5874829)
      Why in the hell would a security camera be wireless? To save re-cabling?
      And this thing doesn't even seem to be encrypted! They probably could not imagine that anyone would care enough to tune in. Even if someone tuned in, so what? I would leave it unencrypted even now.
      • In some apartment buildings, the lobby security camera is available via cable tv so that you can see who you're letting in. (Or see who everyone else is letting in. ;^)
      • Even if someone tuned in, so what?

        Well, if I should break in to somewhere I could be interested to know if I looked good on the screen... who wouldn't?

      • Re:Security camera? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by phillymjs ( 234426 ) <slashdot.stango@org> on Sunday May 04, 2003 @12:14PM (#5874998) Homepage Journal
        Doesn't anyone on here ever watch TV or movies? Seems to me a wireless security camera would actually *help* anyone who might want to break into a given place-- then nobody needs to infiltrate ahead of the break-in to tap into a wired video system.

        First, the bad guys could watch the feed from that wireless camera unknown to anyone for weeks to "case" the target.

        Secondly, all they'd probably have to do to render that camera useless would be intercept some video of the area it watches when said area was unoccupied, change any necessary onscreen time/date stamps (which aren't even an issue if it's a cheap-ass X10 camera), and rebroadcast it with a signal strong enough to overpower the signal from the real camera.

        Of course, this all becomes a non-issue if you assume that an X10 camera would never be used to secure something valuable enough to be of interest to technically-sophisticated thieves who could easily defeat the system. But this is America, and stupider things have happened.

        ~Philly
        • Of course, this all becomes a non-issue if you assume that an X10 camera would never be used to secure something valuable enough to be of interest to technically-sophisticated thieves who could easily defeat the system.

          You don't even need technical sophistication beyond being able to see what the camera sees. In most places that use security cameras, they don't cover every square inch. In most cases it isn't very practical and sometimes it's not even possible.

          People who place security cameras tend to

        • Re:Security camera? (Score:5, Informative)

          by (H)elix1 ( 231155 ) <slashdot.helix@nOSPaM.gmail.com> on Sunday May 04, 2003 @01:09PM (#5875242) Homepage Journal
          Doesn't anyone on here ever watch TV or movies? Seems to me a wireless security camera would actually *help* anyone who might want to break into a given place-- then nobody needs to infiltrate ahead of the break-in to tap into a wired video system.

          I worked a couple jobs while paying for college. Security (the polyester kind) being one of the less rewarding - almost as fun as column chromatography of feces samples in the lab. Anyhow, tape decks were spendy, broken cameras were cheap. I'd wire up a couple cameras in the open and leave a blind spot. That is where I stuck the hidden camera connected to one of two working tape decks. Just like shooting fish in a barrel. You would see them look to make sure the cameras did not cover that area, walk back, and stuff the goods in their pockets/lunchbox/etc.

          Don't assume. The concept of honeypots extend outside of IT....

          • Re:Security camera? (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Avakado ( 520285 )

            I'd wire up a couple cameras in the open and leave a blind spot. That is where I stuck the hidden camera connected to one of two working tape decks. Just like shooting fish in a barrel. You would see them look to make sure the cameras did not cover that area, walk back, and stuff the goods in their pockets/lunchbox/etc.

            How is this better than making the last camera visible, preventing the crimes altogether?

            • Re:Security camera? (Score:2, Informative)

              by (H)elix1 ( 231155 )
              How is this better than making the last camera visible, preventing the crimes altogether?

              Because 'complete' camera coverage did not stop shrinkage. I tried it. People can be very ingenious, and it took real work to figure out not only what, but how and when stuff disappeared. Honeypots got the stupid/cocky ones - which was within the scope of what a minimal paying job that let me study. Having the cops haul away those caught made an impact but even showing people we would prosecute was only a deterren

      • Re:Security camera? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Surak ( 18578 ) * <{moc.skcolbliam} {ta} {karus}> on Sunday May 04, 2003 @12:23PM (#5875060) Homepage Journal
        Even if someone tuned in, so what?

        Security cameras don't usually record every square inch, because in many cases it isn't very practical or cost effective. If you were going to (hypothetically speaking of course) break into a place, you would definitely want to know what the camera *couldn't* see. You'd watch the camera, compare with what you know about the inside of the building, and through the process of elimination -- voila! You now know what the camera doesn't see.

        Sometimes people who place security cameras don't think about other possible ways of entering buildings. They usually watch the door. But one could conceivably enter a building through windows or ventilation systems.

        Even if you had a camera looking at every possible means of entry, chances are good that one or more of those cameras can be disabled or fooled somehow. Knowing what the camera can and can't see can reveal strategies for disabling or fooling the cameras.
        • That is a valid argument for securing the transmission, but I don't think it's all that compelling for visible cameras.

          If you can see the camera, then you can pretty much tell what it can and can't see. It may have a wide angle lens, but it's still pretty much limited to what it is pointed at. Visible cameras are more for deterrent value anyway.

          I think your argument mostly applies to hidden cameras. Discovering the location of the hidden cameras would defeat the purpose of hiding them.

          • Re:Security camera? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Surak ( 18578 ) * <{moc.skcolbliam} {ta} {karus}> on Sunday May 04, 2003 @01:34PM (#5875365) Homepage Journal
            Not those dome-covered cameras, like you see in department stores or grocery stores.

            Even with a totally visible camera, you can't usually tell how wide the angle of view is on the lens. Also, some visible cameras are capable of moving, and do so on a programmed frequency. You'd definitely want to know what that camera can see.

            If you have a place that has a lot of visible cameras the space available to hide in may be as little 2-3 sq. ft. Without being able see that space for sure, you might not take the chance, but if you can pick up the video image via X10 video sniffing, you will know exactly where that space is.

        • If you were going to (hypothetically speaking of course) break into a place, you would definitely want to know what the camera *couldn't* see.

          Or record it, then disable the camera and broadcast the recording while you waltz in, just like in da movies.

        • Given a geometry of a room you can calculate how many cameras you need and where to place them. There's a geometric algorithm which will determine this for you. Its commonly referred to as the guarding an art gallery problem [mcgill.ca]. Pretty cool stuff. :-)
      • Even if someone tuned in, so what? I would leave it unencrypted even now.

        How are you preventing a replay attack on this insecure link?


        • Watch a little too much Speed, did we?

          You'd think they'd notice if there was TWO signals with the same picture?
          • If it's an FM signal (which it probably is) then it exhibits the 'capture effect'; If one signal is significantly stronger (3-6dB is probably enough) than the other, the weaker signal is completely masked.
            • And these cameras are low powered, and can often be snowed out simply by turning on a microwave within several hundred feet.. a simple jamming followed by 'resumption' of normal service may be overlooked..

    • OH NO (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      passer-bys are aware that 2 people are currently occupying the hallway, now all of our corporate secrets shall be revealed.

    • Re:Security camera? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by dattaway ( 3088 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @12:02PM (#5874939) Homepage Journal
      It gets better. Do you know about those long range antennas you can get for your 2.4GHz wireless? They work with the X10 cameras wonderfully. My brother has a pair of 24dBi antennas and let me tell you about the perfect picture from those cameras from miles away. The compact yagi antennas that I have work great too.

      Ever heard of Pringles cans used for X10? That works too!
      • Great.. every time you're watching your friend's porn over x10, I have trouble downloading porn on my wireless laptop.

        • Re:Security camera? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by dattaway ( 3088 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @02:17PM (#5875763) Homepage Journal
          Don't forget about antenna polarization. A receive antenna that matches the direction (polarization) has full strength. Rotate your antenna 90 degrees from your neighbor's vertical polarization into a horizontal orientation and his signal will drop greatly. Kind of like polarized sunglasses blocking out all light of a certain direction.

          Something to think about when sniffing or trying to prevent reception of undesired signals.
  • Don't know if their site has it or not - I'm at work and it's blocked for me. Anyone have more info on it compared to this story?

  • I'd never do this (Score:4, Funny)

    by AndroidCat ( 229562 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @11:36AM (#5874812) Homepage
    Oh, not because of any ethical issues about spying. (War-tomming?) But mainly because I refuse to buy anything from X10 after all those pop-up ads.
  • But is is hardly BUILDING anything. It's instructions on assembling (poorly, I might add) an X10 video receiver, a small LCD panel, and a battery. This isn't even the actual source of the story on hot wo build it (it came from 2600....which is even credited on the site).

    More /. quality.
    • Very true, all it has is how to bring together a 2.4 GHZ analog receiver, battery and screen. Big wow.

      Plus the odd closing statement: anyone want a combo WiFi/Video sniffer for Christmas? Well, I do, but I certainly can not find out from that article. Will have to wait for someone to coax a WiFi card into sniffing analog signals and playing them on a computer.
      • Plus the odd closing statement: anyone want a combo WiFi/Video sniffer for Christmas?

        Yeah...useful would have been giving me a link to some software that lets me see X10 video using the built in wireless on my laptop. I seriously doubt that's going to happen, but I don't really know how X10 video works. If it's just analog 2.4, it's never gonna happen. If they bastardize 802.11b somehow, it MIGHT be possible.

        I know what you're thinking after that ramble. Shut up. It's /. I'm allowed to go of half
      • Will have to wait for someone to coax a WiFi card into sniffing analog signals and playing them on a computer.

        A better bet is "software defined radio": http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/

  • uhm (Score:1)

    by papasui ( 567265 )
    People actually buy that x10 crap?

  • X10 cameras (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I can just see it now...

    (popup)
    Buy are new X10 Camera. Broadcast your personal life to your neighborhood! Publicise your life! Offer expires 11:59:59tonight.

  • How about (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Absurd Being ( 632190 )
    Just a radar type device for detecting all cameras in the area? Right now, we can only assume we're being watched at all times, rather than knowing that we're watched at all times directly.

  • Supply Vs Demand (Score:3, Funny)

    by Malicious ( 567158 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @11:53AM (#5874901)
    Do enough people ACTUALLY respond to the popup ads and buy these dammed things to make this viable?
    What a wonderful society we live in.
    Someone should set up an X10 looking at the image from goatse and broadcast it for any voyers out there.

  • finally.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @11:59AM (#5874928) Journal
    Free Porn!

  • Non-Modder Friendly Solution (Score:5, Informative)

    by MyMainManVERN ( 569632 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @12:06PM (#5874960)
    Icom [icomamerica.com] has a smaller solution and with many other features such as being compact and lightweight. Both features that will keep you traveling further and enjoying the spoils of unsuspecting X10 users for many hours to come.
    • I don't own a r3. I own its little brother, the r2. I have been following the word on the street regarding their performance. They are pretty much deaf to anything outside the tv broadcast bands. Many people are very disappointed with their purchase, especially the ones that bought one hoping to receive X-10 transmissions. You can hook up a different antenna and a preamp but then you are defeating the purpose of a tiny self contained unit. And the performance isn't as good as the X-10 receivers.... Don't bu

  • Simply Amazing! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Andrew Lockhart ( 4470 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @12:08PM (#5874971) Homepage
    A 2.4Ghz video sniffer built with *GASP* a 2.4Ghz video receiver!

    • Re:Simply Amazing! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Selanit ( 192811 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @12:30PM (#5875099)
      Yeah. I was underwhelmed too.

      I wonder, though. X10 cameras and 802.11b equipment do work on the same frequency. Would it be possible to write a program that would allow you to receive X10 data with a WiFi card? We've got the GNU Radio program [gnu.org] that can receive HDTV signals and radio signals and so on. Perhaps that could be modified to grab X10 signals through your wifi card.

      Mind you, it may be that the two technologies are too different to be easily adapted to one another. Sharing spectrum is only one factor to be considered, and a fairly small one at that. Any X10 geeks care to comment on the feasibility of receiving X10 signals with 802.11b hardware?
      • It wouldn't be possible to adapt an 802.11 card to receive the signals. The X-10 video is analog. The GNU-Radio software doesn't receive signals. It basically does the math to raw RF signals, which have been frequency-translated (called transverting) to a range that is able to be captured by a high-end data acquisition board. The 802.11 equipment isn't designed to pass along that raw data.

        Perhaps one day there will be a bit of hardware that will allow us to upload DSP programs to it and have it able to dis
      • "Yeah. I was underwhelmed too."

        Yeah, but have you ever just been whelmed?

    • You're missing the point - they did the X-TREME mod of hooking it up to a video screen. I've been trying to build one of these for a while, but stupid me, I was hooking it up to an ethernet card. :)

  • Only in New York.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Wes Janson ( 606363 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @12:28PM (#5875089) Journal
    could this be of any serious usefulness. Because, really, what is the density per-square-mile of wireless cameras (not to mention the density-per-square-state of *interesting* cameras)?
    • Actually, the UK, and London especially, has tons of video surveillance. (See The New York Times, October 7, 2001, "BEING WATCHED: A Cautionary Tale for a New Age of Surveillance" By JEFFREY ROSEN--my appologies for not knowing how to mirror this.) I'd want to know if I were on camera.... I don't really imagine doing anything that anyone couldn't see in public. But depending on what happens to the tapes, I can certainly imagine as camera become increasingly present, wanting to patronize certain business

  • Start your own TV-studio (Score:4, Funny)

    by rastakid ( 648791 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @12:33PM (#5875119) Homepage Journal
    It would even be cooler if you could send your own videos to the cam's receiver. Imagine sending your pre-released DivX movie to the security officers ;-)
    • Actually... you can.

      Either overpower the other signal, or take out the other security camera.

      It would be a lot more effective than hanging a picture in front of the camera.

      -Restil

  • you mean people actually have X10 cameras? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    you click the popups! you promote them! you are the enemy!

    hypocrites! all of you!
    • You could deliberately click the pop-ups to proliferate these x10 things. You then would have more insecure cameras to snoop on. Clicking pop-ups could have a socialogical impact...

  • Child abuse (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jhines ( 82154 ) <john@jhines.org> on Sunday May 04, 2003 @12:39PM (#5875142) Homepage
    Here in my town, someone captured the neighbor beating their kid. The video tape made short work of the legal procedings.

    Yeah, about a year ago.

  • Okay... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by athakur999 ( 44340 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @12:52PM (#5875185) Journal
    Slashdot people get all uppity about browser cookies from advertising companies and complain about their loss of privacy.

    Then they turn around and say "cool, I need to get me some of that" to a device that lets you invade other people's privacy without their knowledge or consent.

    Of course, Slashdot people are also "we hate the MPAA, when does the new Matrix movie open?" too, so I guess I shouldn't be too shocked :)

    • Re:Okay... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Catnapster ( 531547 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @01:13PM (#5875261) Homepage
      There is a difference between what is being discussed and invasion of privacy. If I encrypt the feed, breaking it would be an invasion of privacy; however, the only "privacy" you get for broadcasting unencrypted signal is privacy from people without receivers.

      It's like if I walk down the street and people use X-ray glasses to stare at my crotch - that is an invasion of privacy. But this is the equivalent of me walking down the street with my dick dangling merrily. If I show it for the world to see, it's pretty dumb to get mad at people who look.
      • It's more like accidentally leaving the shade in your house open. If you lived across the street and pointed a camera into the window, I'd feel pretty violated. Telling me "you should have encrypted the photons you were reflecting out the window" wouldn't make me feel any less violated.

        • Re:Okay... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Catnapster ( 531547 )
          I'm not telling you to encrypt photons - I'm telling you to close the shade.

          If you're filming things with your nifty wireless camera that you don't feel comfortable with people watching, then use a more secure method (like, say, a wired camera). If what you're doing requires wireless capability, and you recognize that, chances are you could find a more secure way to do it.

          Going with your example... because people could point cameras into the window, if it mattered to you, you would want to close the w
      • There is a difference between what is being discussed and invasion of privacy. If I encrypt the feed, breaking it would be an invasion of privacy; however, the only "privacy" you get for broadcasting unencrypted signal is privacy from people without receivers.

        Yeah, and if someone forgets and leaves their keys in the car, they are just ASKING me to steal it... Nice rationalization, buddy.

        Most people don't even understand the implications of not encrypting the signal.. Not everyone is a geek..

  • One more shining example that some people need to get a life and a therapist.

  • Wireless receiver (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Here is a wireless receiver [cu1.com] for only $88.
  • Isn't there a way to get those camera's signal through standard wi-fi equipment? Or do we need the assorted X10 video receiver (as the one shown in the article?)

  • Just the other day, my boss was telling me that now when he and his wife stay in someone's guest bedroom, he's always nervous about whether there is an X10 camera hidden in there.

    I suppose I could build him one of these, and he could have at least some idea of whether he's being watched or not...

    steve

  • Useful? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cruciform ( 42896 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @02:49PM (#5876002) Homepage
    Well, the average reader isn't going to find much use in this, but imagine how handy it would be to the average burglar or rapist. They don't have to take the inital risk of peeking in the windows.

    You can scope out a house in advance, see if anyone is home, etc. etc.

    Wireless functionality is great, but I wouldn't use those cameras in my home without some form of encryption.

  • or just buy one (Score:3, Interesting)

    by g4dget ( 579145 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @02:49PM (#5876007)
    Or get one of these: Icom R3 [icomamerica.com]. Far more portable.
  • ...I'll sell you tickets to look at mine.

    Beats a couple hundred bucks spent for that hardware.
  • I have a bit to say about the X-10 here, it's really not all it's cracked up to be:

    Surveillance Losing Its Fun [blogspot.com]...

  • X10 != X10.com, the annoying pop-up company (Score:5, Informative)

    by sdo1 ( 213835 ) on Sunday May 04, 2003 @08:18PM (#5878055) Journal
    It's important to note that X10 is NOT the same thing as that annoying popup company, X10.com (and no, I won't even link to them). X10 is a low speed communication standard that has been around for a long time [zdnet.com].

    Do not dismiss X10 (the technology) just because some lame company has hijacked it and promotes the use of the products for illegal surveillance (yes, making a recording of you trying to boink your drunk and ugly date without her knowing is indeed illegal).

    There are plenty of good companies to get X10 products from without going through X10.com. Smarthome [smarthome.com] and Radio Shack [radioshack.com] are a couple.

    It's a shame X10.com chose the sleasy marking route because it really has tainted a pretty decent and useful technology.

    -S

  • Wonder how I can increase the pickup range of these things. I have a DVD screen in my van that has RCA jacks available. This would be neat to hook up the receiver and drive around. I know what I will be doing tonight!!!

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close