Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Researchers Turn Home Wi-Fi Router Into Spy Device

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the no-warrant-required dept.

Hardware Hacking 108

hypnosec writes "Researchers at University College of London have applied principles of radar used in defense and designed a detector using home based Wi-Fi routers to spy on people across walls. Using the principles behind the Doppler effect ... Karl Woodbridge and Kevin Chetty, at University College London, have built a prototype unit that uses Wi-Fi signals and recognizes frequency changes to detect moving objects. The size of the prototype unit is more or less the size of a suitcase. The unit contains a radio receiver comprising of two antennas and a signal-processing unit. The duo carried out test runs and ... they managed to determine a person's location, speed, and direction (even through a one foot thick brick wall). The device could be used to spot intruders, monitor children or the elderly, and could even be used in military applications."

cancel ×

108 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cool (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40876403)

Would be nice to see how this might be used for good, not just evil.

Re:Cool (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40876705)

In the hand of all good US army and intelligence everything is used for good... anyone else using it will be for bad bad terrorism...

Re:Cool (4, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876793)

Ok, it can be used to detect if you are about to be attacked by zombies or RIAA agents.

Re:Cool (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876803)

Nice rationalization for a wallhack there. Personally, I think even in the case of a zombie apocalypse you have to have *some* standards. Otherwise, what is the difference between you and a zombie?

WWJD (5, Funny)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876825)

So cheating with wallhacks is bad? Not for a christian -- Jesus abused an item cloning bug [wikipedia.org] himself.

Re:WWJD (1)

holysin (549880) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876845)

if only I had mod points, thanks for the good LOL before bed.

Re:WWJD (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876849)

I hope cloning food is one of those glitches that will end up as a feature someday, like rocket jumping. At any rate, since he shared the bread and fishes with all on the server, I wouldn't call it abusing the bug, especially since they were all just idling anyway, there wasn't a match in progress at that time.

Re:WWJD (3, Funny)

indeterminator (1829904) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876897)

At any rate, since he shared the bread and fishes with all on the server, I wouldn't call it abusing the bug, especially since they were all just idling anyway, there wasn't a match in progress at that time.

Some other cases of him exploting glitches also come to mind. But being a son of the server admin, I don't think there was any chance of him getting banned...

Re:WWJD (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876949)

Well yeah, there's that ^^ But as I said, I don't think it counts as cheating, since he wasn't really fragging anyone... IIRC he mostly warned of the impending crash of the server they were on, while handing out the access details for the new one ("the admin's private server has many slots") to those who agreed to installing punkbuster and having their score reset. He exploited glitches to get the attention of players for that purpose, sure, but I'm not sure that sounds as cheating?

Re:WWJD (2)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 2 years ago | (#40877301)

I dunno, in the end the Roman Empire guild crucified him after all.
Besides its not entirely clear that he was the son of the server admin, there's been these confusing references to an account named Holy Ghost, as well as the Jesus account and the Admin account itself of course, suggesting that all three are "one, but separate" etc. Might be the same player administering the server and then playing on 2 other accounts as well.

Re:WWJD (3, Insightful)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40877497)

Didn't Jesus let them kill him on purpose, so he could respawn 3 days later as a further demonstration of him being (endorsed by) the admin? But yeah, it's hard to make sense of it going just by a bunch of server logs which may have been tampered with.

Re:WWJD (1)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 2 years ago | (#40881643)

Good point, I had forgotten it was more or less ordained.

As for the partial server logs, remember that whole confusing "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" statement when all along he claimed to be uninterested in PvP entirely? Very confusing.
His followers seemed to be heavily into PvP mind you...

Re:WWJD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40877683)

TIL: God makes sock puppets.

Re:WWJD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40876967)

So cheating with wallhacks is bad? Not for a christian -- Jesus abused an item cloning bug [wikipedia.org] himself.

He also seems to have used noclip mode (John 20.19-20)

Re:WWJD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40877167)

The miracle in question is a particularly memorable fundraiser event. When Jesus's disciples didn't have enough food for the remainder of the day, the multitudes turned up and donated beyond the disciples' wildest imagination. The occasion must have been one of the movement's foundational experiences; it gave them confidence that full-time preaching was a sustainable business model.

Re:WWJD (1)

isopropanol (1936936) | more than 2 years ago | (#40877591)

Or he lectured the crowd for hours about not beeing greedy and sharing with others before announcing that they didn't have enough food to go around... and surprise! many of the people had brought their lunches and decided to share.

Re:Cool (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 2 years ago | (#40877043)

what is the difference between you and a zombie?
I smell better.

Re:Cool (2)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40877143)

Do zombies go by smell? Because in that case peppering the walls with bullets where you detect silhouettes will just help them find you quicker, and smelling nice just makes it worse :/

I on the other hand won't have to change a thing. I'll just sit here like I always do, quietly, reading slashdot covered in a thick crust of dead skin and feces, waiting to get last post. I'm ready!

Re:Cool (1)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 2 years ago | (#40881073)

Nope, I've got to go with sound primarily, followed by movements faster than a typical zombie. This conclusion is the result of many hours of studying documentary footage of zombies hunting in their natural habitat.

Re:Cool (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | more than 2 years ago | (#40877425)

Nice rationalization for a wallhack there. Personally, I think even in the case of a zombie apocalypse you have to have *some* standards. Otherwise, what is the difference between you and a zombie?

Brainsss!

Re:Cool (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 2 years ago | (#40878213)

Or Sectoids and Mutons. Clearly this is an X-Com motion scanner.

Re:Cool (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#40878243)

You forgot ghosts! If it detects vaguely moving, inaccurately shaped blobs through a wall but isn't real clear if something is really there or not and it can't tell the difference between an owl, a coffee table, and a human, the Ghost Hunters will be all over it! This will spark a whole new series of their show! ERMEHGERD!!! BLOB! MUST B GHOSTZ!

Re:Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40882349)

Evil will triumph... because good is dumb.

Hats and shield (0)

BSAtHome (455370) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876417)

The tinfoil house will be near us soon. Makes me wonder if the tech will be used as an indication that you "have something to hide" if no signal is detected.

Re:Hats and shield (1)

DamonHD (794830) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876443)

1) The foil vapour-control-layer just behind the plasterboard on my aerogel internal wall insulation seems to be starting to to that job quite well already.

2) I don't have an FB a/c so I really must be a terrrrrist, yes?

Rgds

Damon

Re:Hats and shield (3, Informative)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876527)

Well, just wait for the FUCK act (Facebook Update Complete Knowledge act). That will make it illegal to not put everything about yourself on Facebook.

Re:Hats and shield (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40876843)

Well, just wait for the FUCK act (Facebook Update Complete Knowledge act). That will make it illegal to not put everything about yourself on Facebook.

It will be followed by the SHIT Act (Security of the Homeland for the Investigation of Terror) that will make it illegal to put personal information on Facebook because terrorists and foreign spies would use that to create false identities for terror attacks and spying.

Gotta have laws that contradict one another so that everyone is a criminal.

Re:Hats and shield (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876477)

Well, you can just claim that you just want to shield from the evil phone radiation.

Re:Hats and shield (2)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876797)

Dont need to. just buy "magnetic paint" at home depot and paint your walls. it's a very high concentration of iron in the paint and it blocks RF quite well.

Re:Hats and shield (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40877059)

Dont need to. just buy "magnetic paint" at home depot and paint your walls. it's a very high concentration of iron in the paint and it blocks RF quite well.

Wouldn't it need to be grounded?

Posting as AC because I am moderating. Thought I'd mention that, because of course everyone cares.

Re:Hats and shield (2)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40877661)

Nope. metal reflects RF if grounded, floating or charged with 10,000 volts.

Re:Hats and shield (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40877997)

During previous decades, lead was used to protect the inhabitants from the nuclear fallout and feed the children. The metals in our paints, they are changing.

Re:Hats and shield (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40882175)

aluminum siding

So ... (0)

Grindalf (1089511) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876429)

If I have a Mac, does that mean I can have x ray eyes and see through chicks clothing?

Re:So ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40876947)

It would certainly help if you're going for the homosexual male friend angle.

Re:So ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40877007)

I like my women like I like my coffee, with a penis.

Wrong history... (1, Flamebait)

Jorgensen (313325) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876447)

The article gets off to a bad start in the very first sentence:

In the 1930s, U.S. Navy researchers stumbled upon the concept of radar when...

Rubish. The US Navy did not invent radar as it implies. Nicola Tesla descibed the concept in 1917 and others were playing with similar ideas before then. Sorry. Im not going to bother reading the rest. Isnt there an actual paper on the subject we can read instead of this badly-informed junk?

Re:Wrong history... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40876465)

Yeah! didn't expect Popular science to make such a mess. I guess they wanted to emphasize on the importance of the US Navy rather than the inventors of the technology. What a shame!

Re:Wrong history... (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876541)

Rubbish ^2 - The quote does not imply the navy invented radar. "Stumbled upon the concept" directly implies the concept already existed, ie: the Navy heard about it in the 1930's and put it to practical use. Even then, nobody was really interested until WW2.

Re:Wrong history... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40876569)

No it doesn't. Stumbled upon the concept implies the concept was NOT there before, and while researching a related matter, somone had the idea of radar, independantly. So, the quote does indeed suggest that the navy invented radar.

Re:Wrong history... (3, Informative)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876637)

So does that mean if I'm exploring out in the woods, and I stumble upon a cave entrance, that the cave didn't exist prior to my discovery?
If I'm researching some technology and I stumble upon a related patent, that the patent didn't exist before I found it? Great, that means I just need to stumble across every patent in the USPTO, and I own every technology in existence!!

Screw the rest of the steps, just:

5. PROFIT!!!!1!

Your interpretation is completely at odds with decades of history of this phrase.

Re:Wrong history... (1)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 2 years ago | (#40881083)

No, actually the cave simultaneously existed and did not exist until you stumbled upon it.

Re:Wrong history... (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 2 years ago | (#40884389)

Thanks, better than my answer :)

Re:Wrong history... (3, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876691)

No it doesn't. Stumbled upon the concept implies the concept was NOT there before, and while researching a related matter, somone had the idea of radar, independantly. So, the quote does indeed suggest that the navy invented radar.

Incorrect. Stumbling upon something literally refers to the act of coming upon something; it does not imply existence of that something either way, not that that something existed before, nor that that something didn't exist before. You can stumble upon radar technology itself just as much as you can stumble upon the fact that someone else stumbled upon it.

Re:Wrong history... (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876809)

Unlikely. The majority of people are platonists, and believe that all ideas "exist" already out there in some universe of the mind, and that people merely discover (or "stumble" upon, if the discovery is incidental) them.

Of course it is literally impossible to stumble upon radar technology, or upon the fact that someone else stumbled upon it, figuratively.

Sigh. (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876819)

Of course it is literally impossible to stumble upon the idea of radar technology...

Re:Sigh. (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#40877285)

Of course it is literally impossible to stumble upon the idea of radar technology...

But it is not impossible to stumble upon The Idea of Radar Technology, especially if someone has left it lying on the floor of a dark room.

Re:Wrong history... (1)

wooferhound (546132) | more than 2 years ago | (#40877361)

Incorrect. Stumbling upon something literally refers to the act of coming upon something.

stumbling upon is like when you are walking in the woods smoking a big doobie and you trip over a log in the path

Re:Wrong history... (0)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 2 years ago | (#40879485)

No, that's more like stumble. Its when you discover the village of smurfs as the result of your stumble (being closer to the ground) that you stumbled upon something.

Re:Wrong history... (1)

Snaller (147050) | more than 2 years ago | (#40877725)

Yeah except bullshit. You don't understand the language (regardless of where you were born) - in this semantic context it clearly means "Invented".

Re:Wrong history... (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 2 years ago | (#40884461)

You don't understand the language

And you think a bald assertion might fix that?

in this semantic context it clearly means "Invented".

What? You think I read TFA? AFAIC the context is the OP's quote, and it can be interpreted either way (depending on which eye you close).

BTW: 95th percentile at state level for mid-HS english comprehension test (1970's), but hey my english teacher thought I cheated too?

Re:Wrong history... (1)

findoutmoretoday (1475299) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876645)

Even then, nobody was really interested until WW2.

Maybe they got interested in radars to avoid icebergs and ships a problem encountered by Olympic, Titanic, Lusitania .... and installed one on the Normandie

Re:Wrong history... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876993)

Rubbish ^2 - The quote does not imply the navy invented radar.

YMMV but it certainly sounded that way to me...

Re:Wrong history... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40883891)

Umm... not only that, but I know of NO such described incident with regard to the US Navy.

I DO know of such an incident in the UK, which occurred while they were experimenting with attempts to interfere with aircraft engines using radio waves. It was this that started Thomas Watson-Watt and the other UK scientists off on their eventual invention of Radar.

The US had nothing like this, and did not do any research in the field. I think that this item is just transposing something that happened in the UK and claiming that it happened in the US - something the Americans frequently do....

Get the trickle-down effect right (1)

Apotekaren (904220) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876469)

"...and could even be used in military applications."

The naiveté is overwhelming. Military applications, if even remotely plausible, would be the first to get this technology, not high-tech baby monitors.

Re:Get the trickle-down effect right (4, Insightful)

JabrTheHut (640719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876529)

Police forces will be pre-ordering this technology and asking for demonstrations within the next few days. Being able to spy on someone without a warrant or oversight is an aphrodisiac for cops.

Re:Get the trickle-down effect right (2)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876609)

So, can hackers figure out a way to feed these things wrong information so the output image looks like a shock site of your choosing?

Re:Get the trickle-down effect right (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876643)

...*

What is that?

What?....wait...noooo....ARRRRRRGGGGHHH!!!

Mental terrorist!!! MENTAL TERRORIST!!!!!

Re:Get the trickle-down effect right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40876683)

Sure, you modulate the wifi signal. :-) Show them a movie of your choice . . .

Re:Get the trickle-down effect right (1)

wooferhound (546132) | more than 2 years ago | (#40877371)

So, can hackers figure out a way to feed these things wrong information so the output image looks like a shock site of your choosing?

You would need a Tin Foil house

Re:Get the trickle-down effect right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40876671)

I think it can be compared to thermal cameras. In most jurisdictions the police needs a warrant to use it to loook inside your home.

Re:Get the trickle-down effect right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40878121)

If the poilce have warrants, they may as well just enter or otherwise force entry.

The main use of these thermal cameras or WiFi signal reflection tracking is for the secret service who like to do covert operations.

Re:Get the trickle-down effect right (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876531)

Actually I think Intelligence Agencies would be the first to get it. If they don't already have it, of course.

Re:Get the trickle-down effect right (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876641)

If these researchers disappear soon, you'll know said agencies have had the technology for a while. :)

NSA (5, Insightful)

Rant-a-Holic (2700617) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876509)

Hi there. NSA here. We'd like to ask everyone to stop copying our ideas. Unfortunately we can't patent them for obvious reasons, but we can block you just as much under the 'National Security' stamp, so just forget about it. Also just letting you know we are pushing for legislation to ban auto-frequency shifting routers and any rapidly moving iron object in the premises that may scatter signals. But for the record; this works just as well with your cordless phone, cellphone, radio controlled car and microwave, so switching of your router really doesn't help you. And since you propagate the radio signals voluntarily the fourth amendment also doesn't apply. (Please don't conclude we care about the constitution - We've had this argument already) Oh yeah, before I forget; dwellings that emit NO radio signals are automatically marked for surveillance and occupants placed on the no-fly list.

Re:NSA (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40876693)

Also just letting you know we are pushing for legislation to ban[...] any rapidly moving iron object in the premises that may scatter signals.

NSA wants do ban ammunition? I need popcorn to watch the battle between NRA and NSA, not sure which side will be surviving this epic fight.

Re:NSA (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876915)

Hi there. NSA here. We'd like to ask everyone to stop copying our ideas. Unfortunately we can't patent them for obvious reasons, but we can block you just as much under the 'National Security' stamp, so just forget about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act [wikipedia.org]
You can apply for a classified patent and the government can retroactively classify an already granted/applied for patent.
Once your patent is classified, your only customer is the government or government contractors with clearance.

Re:NSA (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#40877357)

Apply for a foreign patent first as a way around it?

Re:NSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40877105)

Actually, there are secret patents; contractors developing classified technology are allowed to patent things. They get declassified when the technology described is declassified, and they're licensed back and forth across the defense industry, including internationally, just like other patents.

Re:NSA (1)

anubi (640541) | more than 2 years ago | (#40879557)

When I saw this article, I immediately thought of something I had seen done for years.

Basically, this device is a digital signal processor looking at two antennas and looking at the phase shifts induced by a moving reflective object.

The effect is quite pronounced, and only needs some source of RF to illuminate the area. An OTA TV transmitter transmitting its normal fare does very nicely. If you have ever used a TV with rabbit ears, I am sure you have seen the effect yourself. You move about the room, and the TV misbehaves in all sorts of weird ways depending on where everybody in the room is standing. Now, if they move, the pattern of misbehaviour changes.

Its not that big of a thing for a digital signal processor, connected to two or more antennas, to pick up a reference signal - transmitted by a TV tower miles away, compare the signal each antenna receives against the others, and from that deduce the position of any reflecting object moving in the field. It is looking for phase shifts causing aiding and opposing amplitude in various slices of RF spectrum.

These phase shifts are a result of the distance you are from the antenna, as a function with the speed of light. As you traverse one wavelength, you will complete 360 degrees of phase distortion at that frequency to that antenna.

Just as white light illuminating an area enables us to see objects reflecting/absorbing light, with the lens of our eyes doing the beamforming and focusing, wideband RF illuminating an area enables RF signal processing to beamform and focus, providing images of objects that reflect/absorb RF.

Yes, you could use a router as an RF source, but you can just as easily use a high powered RF transmitter miles away to illuminate your area - completely covertly, no less.

You can process your data to see 3D images of objects in the area... while everyone else is watching the game on the carrier wave.

and even be used in military applications?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40876581)

whoa, whoa cowboy, slow down there....that last "even" just made the entire rest of the article padded filler to justify what anyone would expect anyway, but seeing it couched in such pathetically blatant terms only makes it stand out all the more. We all saw Real Genius son, we all know how this works, you're not on our side.

Re:and even be used in military applications?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40876621)

Oh, come on, you are exaggerating. We haven't all seen real genius. I mean I do, every morning in the mirror, but since I rarely leave my house the rest of you sad fucks are out of luck.

Re:and even be used in military applications?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40877009)

Steve? Is that you?

If I weren't just... (1)

ewertz (1191025) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876611)

If I weren't just a capacitive bag of antenna-tuning water, why I'd... ... um.... er... humpf.

so what\s the news here (3, Interesting)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876613)

Passive radar has been researched and used for a while now, which is cool. And the reported thing would be cool too, if it would be passive and if it would not require a custom-built active-signal based wifi device with the size of a suitcase which is anything but covert. Also, through-the-wall radars have been used for a time, which don't provide too much detail, but can tell at least the number of moving objects and locate them. Again, this would be quite nice if it wouldn't require the placement of a custom device, or if it does, then it should be quite much smaller and not different in size or looks from any other router you can buy, and then at least they could place them in banks or wherever.

Re:so what\s the news here (1)

Immerman (2627577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876689)

From what I understood this doesn't require a custom transmitter, the normal wi-fi router already in the room will work fine.

Re:so what\s the news here (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 2 years ago | (#40879219)

Peter Wright would have been all over this.

Passive radar (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40876659)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar [wikipedia.org]

Passive radar uses radio sources, like TV and FM stations, instead of having its own transmitter. The receiver detects the direct signal from the transmitter and the signal reflected from the target. The trick is to separate the two. Using the doppler effect does that nicely for moving targets.

The advantage of passive radar is that it can't be detected.

The radar in TFA doesn't need to be undetectable, the targets probably don't have detectors. It could have its own transmitter. That would simplify the receiver design a lot. The transmitter is quite simple and cheap, being a GUNN diode or something like that. It would also require a directional transmitting antenna. Developing such a device would be much cheaper and it would work much better.

Given that the researchers did the job the hard way, their accomplishment is quite impressive. On the other hand, we haven't seen a fully field tested version. There is a large gap between a lab demo under controlled circumstances and an actual useable device.

Re:Passive radar (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#40877379)

It would also require a directional transmitting antenna.

To the rescue [weinterrupt.com]

Mandatory TR-069 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40876675)

The mandatory TR-069 my ISP compiled into the router just got worse. It was bad enough I had to put it behind a switch, now I need to tin foil it?

Time to switch ISPs... Oh wait, I can't. It's a monopoly.

Home Wi-Fi Router? (4, Informative)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876681)

The headline is a bit misleading. They did not convert a Wifi station to a spy device, but created a completely separate device to interpret Wifi signals and their reflections in a building.

Re:Home Wi-Fi Router? (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | more than 2 years ago | (#40877443)

The headline is a bit misleading. They did not convert a Wifi station to a spy device, but created a completely separate device to interpret Wifi signals and their reflections in a building.

Well, actually they converted a Wifi station to HALF of a spy device.

They simply created the other half.

Sigh.. (3, Interesting)

gallondr00nk (868673) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876747)

Finding new ways to spy on people is something we seem to be really good at here in the UK

Re:Sigh.. (3, Funny)

Kergan (780543) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876891)

Finding new ways to spy on people is something we seem to be really good at here in the UK

On the plus side, James Bond ends up with an ample supply of new gadgets to show off.

Re:Sigh.. (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#40877449)

But the Americans are still the masters of disguise [wikimedia.org]

Re:Sigh.. (1)

Leghkster (603558) | more than 2 years ago | (#40877749)

I thought the masters [gettyimages.com] of disguise [gettyimages.com] were the French [gettyimages.com] .

Great (5, Funny)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 2 years ago | (#40876779)

Now I have to run Wild Weasel missions against my own router.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40877265)

This, sir, is why I read slashdot. Well done.
I am off to cleanup the nasal coffeesurge mess that you caused.

Detecting & Blocking it? (1)

Sigg3.net (886486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40877381)

So if it uses Wifi-range signals, we could prolly make a "spy device detector" or even "spy device blocker" in dd-wrt?
With everyone using wifi, I don't understand how results could be so accurate. Please enlighten me:)

Re:Detecting & Blocking it? (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40878497)

All you have to do is cover everything in your home with tinfoil.

Aren't all Wi-Fi routers potential honeypots? (1)

DerUberTroll (2676259) | more than 2 years ago | (#40877475)

Who use Wi-Fi anyway, except when you really have no other choice?

what's wi-fi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40877929)

sorry dont use it and i flash my own firmware onto my router every so often to ensure its security isn't being wacked....
yup its a funny thing when you step out into the world....you never know what will happen, the best you can do is to try and be as prepared as you can....and worry not for there are those out there that care.

so you put the pcs you want no signal .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40877983)

so you put the pcs you want no signal in a tinfoiled shield iron setup and leave a no mind vulnerable outside to make 'them' ( whom every they are ) thinking your just sheeple....problem solved one can even design bounce back material setups so that said shield just does not register and hte unregistered does.

once again 5 minutes a brain power defeats the evil us spy business....

NSA's been doing this for years (1)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | more than 2 years ago | (#40878197)

While it is super neat to see this being done with routers by mere humans, it hardly compares to what our overlords have been doing for a long time. An old friend who was a low-level translator for the NSA (spying on Russians), had once described a patented device which was used for remote eavesdropping. For example, it would use the radiation from something like a television, or a monitor, etc., and through extremely sensitive observation, determine words by the electro-magnetic interference caused by the collision of sound with EM-fields. I'm pretty sure similar principles have been applied to objects for a while too.

Hate me if you will, but I can't remember the name of the apparatus mentioned by my old friend. This excerpt from a pretty interesting documentary about the quiet zone, in Western Virginia, I think fits the subject very well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWqfVq5Wn0I [youtube.com]
I definitely want to make one though.

rofl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40878527)

Hello? This is the Police! would you be so kind as to plug the wifi router(s) back in so we can track you?

so old idea returns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40882731)

Radio Shack sold a wireless intruder alarm way back. It transmitted a rf signal and could use that to monitor a room for motion. Somebody figured a wifi router also can do this. neat

Continuum (1)

spud1955 (879933) | more than 2 years ago | (#40883417)

I watched an episode of Continuum last night where they used the the signal from a cell tower to map peoples movements and I thought it was the most ridiculous idea in a scifi show ever. I was wrong.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>