Closing the Spycam Sniffer Loophole

Closing the Spycam Sniffer Loophole
Mark Rasch, 2002-04-22

Those cheap wireless video cameras hawked by annoying pop-up ads can be intercepted by anyone with a few hundred dollars and a voyeristic bent. There's no federal law against it, but there should be.

Colapse all | Post comment

Here we go again -- trying to plug a security hole with legislation instead of technology 2002-04-22
Anonymous (2 replies)

This is *exactly* the sort of knee-jerk response that leads to things like mandatory key-escrow systems.

Title III was and is a ridiculous government intrusion into all of our rights for the benefit of a few companies. Basically, they didn't want to have to go to the expense of adding voice scra...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Here we go again -- trying to plug a security hole with legislation instead of technology 2002-04-23
Anonymous

Precisely my opinion. This story should be about how companies produce very weak products security wise and then offer them to the public knowing that anyone can easily evesdrop on the communications.

The public needs to wake up and realize that creating 1000000 new laws is not the answer to the...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Here we go again -- trying to plug a security hole with legislation instead of technology 2002-04-23
Mark Rasch (2 replies)

I am troubled by the assertion that there is a right to engage in electronic eavesdropping that is being ingringed by Title III. In the absense of a statutory prohibition, not only would hackers be entitled to intercept your video, cell phone and email, but the police would be too!...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Here we go again -- trying to plug a security hole with legislation instead of technology 2002-04-24
Anonymous

Not if you used encryption. Which you should be doing *anyway*, because a law will only keep the honest people out. It would probably have loopholes for law enforcement anyway, so your police argument doesn't carry weight. I believe it is, for example, still legal for the police to eavesdrop on y...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Here we go again -- trying to plug a security hole with legislation instead of technology 2002-05-02
Anonymous (1 replies)

Mark, In the discussion concerning legislation vs. security, you replied:

"I am troubled by the assertion that there is a right to engage in electronic eavesdropping that is being ingringed by Title III. In the absense of a statutory prohibition, not only would hackers be entitled to intercept ...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Here we go again -- trying to plug a security hole with legislation instead of technology 2002-05-04
Mark D. Rasch

I agree that the law doesnt prevent people from doing things, and technology is important to prevent "snooping." However, under a Supreme Court case in 1963, Katz v. United States, the court held that you only have an expection of privacy in some activity if you both objectively think it private, a...

[ more ] [ reply ]

It's a sad day 2002-04-22
Xenophon Fenderson, the Carbon(d)ated

Laws that punish hackers with neato-fun wireless gear isn't going to close the loopholes that today's wireless systems present. Until manufacturers are held liable for security vulnerabilities in their products, it will continue to be relatively easy to eavesdrop on telephone calls, satellite TV, 8...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Closing the Spycam Sniffer Loophole 2002-04-22
Anonymous (2 replies)

For many years, FCC regulations allowed anybody to monitor anything they could receive, provided they did not "act upon" the information gathered. This changed with the first cellphones. The cell companies wanted to say that their systems were "private", but it was relatively common knowledge that s...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Closing the Spycam Sniffer Loophole 2002-04-22
Anonymous (1 replies)

There isn't. What's ironic is any old TV set (the kind with the rotary UHF dial that goes up to channel 82) can listen in on the 'blocked' cell phone frequencies.
...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Closing the Spycam Sniffer Loophole 2002-04-23
Anonymous

Just because there's a law prohibiting someone from doing something doesn't mean they won't do it. I agree, there should be implemented security. And it's relatively cheap to achieve....

[ more ] [ reply ]

Closing the Spycam Sniffer Loophole 2002-05-03
Mark Rasch

In fact, the majority of cases involving the interception of cellular and cordless telephones were POLICE listening in on citizen's telephone calls. Althought there ARE technological fixes in place (digital cellular, and spread spectrum telephones), they dont always work.

Should the police be ab...

[ more ] [ reply ]

less government - more corded cameras! 2002-04-23
Anonymous

I would rather expose myself to a malicious hacker than have more money taken from my paycheck to cover a goverment enforcement program created by a well meaning lawyer.

The hacker stealing my image costs me $0.

If I REALLY want my privacy I will BUY A CAMERA WITH A CORD!!!

...

[ more ] [ reply ]

former Justice Dept official wants job back 2002-04-23
Anonymous

Hmmm - a former federal government lawyer in Bethesda (just outside Washington) wants a federal law to protect us against wireless cameras.

Guaranteed employment.

Wish my job were as secure!

...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Closing the Spycam Sniffer Loophole 2002-04-24
Anonymous

By the looks of the all encompassing Patriot Act one does not have a chance in hell of any privacy anyway! Correct! We need to get the technology makers to protect our privacy. Not for the sake that I am concerned about some peeping tom. We need protection from our StaSi (Staats Sicherheit) KGB gove...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Closing the Spycam Sniffer Loophole 2002-04-24
Anonymous (1 replies)

I think that Mark Rasch has really missed the mark here. I have seen several points addressed here, but perhaps we should recognize that these "cheap wireless video cameras" inhabit a frequency spectrum shared with many other services. In fact, X-10 cameras are not the primary allocated user of this...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Closing the Spycam Sniffer Loophole 2002-05-04
Mark D. Rasch

As with other wiretap laws, the statute would not preclude the accidental or inadvertent collection of data. It precludes the intentional interception of communications -- e.g., I sit outside your house with a receiver intending to capture your communications. The "cost" of this is borne only by th...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Closing the Spycam Sniffer Loophole 2002-04-25
Anonymous

If I bought some of these cameras,it would be with the knowlege that any one in the vicinity with a reciever could see what's on my cameras.How can one expect privacy from a product that has none?That's like expecting privacy while your nude sunbathing in your yard with no fence!It's ridiculous.I wo...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Closing the Spycam Sniffer Loophole 2002-05-08
Richard S. Keirstead

After reading his online postings in this thread, I cannot but admire the control and humble restraint of author and lawyer Mark D. Rasch, Esq. In the face of an anonymous poster, Dr. Rasch holds his own, remains on point and focused on the theme of his Front Page article. We would all do well to mi...

[ more ] [ reply ]

Closing the Spycam Sniffer Loophole 2002-05-09
Kevin White

Mark may have his day yet if our "government of the people" has it !#%^ way.

Listen to this from NPR.org

http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/me/20020509.me.04.ram

Real audio format (sorry)..

The important quote from this story is from FBI Director Mueller

Quoting Andrea Seabrook reporter who ...

[ more ] [ reply ]