Google Glass Detector Cuts Off Glassholes’ Wi-Fi

SRTie4k

Gawd
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
965
And this has what to do with equating it to cops again?

Oh yeah, nothing.

Exactly what I said before until you tried to obfuscate it with completely nonsensical (and impractical/improbable) circumstances.
 

Rizen

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2000
Messages
9,487
I don't really understand why everyone flips their shit over Google Glass. Do you worry about people recording your with their cell phones when you go out today? Because smart phones are basically ubiquitous in the first world and those have the same or better capabilities of Google Glass.
 

mi7chy

2[H]4U
Joined
May 22, 2013
Messages
3,985
The bigger asshole is the one disrupting service and deserves to be slapped.
 

JaiWebb

Gawd
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
601
Exactly what I said before until you tried to obfuscate it with completely nonsensical (and impractical/improbable) circumstances.

Oh yeah, that's right, you were comparing private citizens to public police officers, I remember now.
 

Modred189

Can't Read the OP
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
15,843
I think the bigger issue is the asshat who thinks its ok to tamper with my electronics.
IMHO, though not a legal course of action, if you screw with my electronics, you are giving me permission to screw with yours. That means, when I see that goofy wifi antenna sticking out of your bag, I'm ripping it out and tossing it in the river.

Bottom line: I have the right to take pictures and video in public. Even of YOU.
YOU do not have the right to screw with my stuff.
 

JaiWebb

Gawd
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
601
"Private" citizens have as much privacy as a police officer in a public place.
It would appear they have less.

Police officers have tens of thousands of times confiscated peoples "public" recording devices. It had to go to the supreme court and yet it still just happened to my neighbor months ago.

On top of that

“To say ‘I don’t want to be filmed’ at a restaurant, at a party, or playing with your kids is perfectly OK

Two out of three of the examples listed in the article are definitely "private" property and the other example could go either way.
 

Modred189

Can't Read the OP
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
15,843
It would appear they have less.

Police officers have tens of thousands of times confiscated peoples "public" recording devices. It had to go to the supreme court and yet it still just happened to my neighbor months ago.

On top of that
Having a right is different than having it violated. We wouldn't need those rights if they weren't periodically violated. Good thing is, you get paid if they are.

Two out of three of the examples listed in the article are definitely "private" property and the other example could go either way.
But let's remember.. at least in the US, if you are out in public and ask someone not to film you or your kids, there is no reason for them to obey. Just common decency.
 

SRTie4k

Gawd
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
965
It would appear they have less.

Police officers have tens of thousands of times confiscated peoples "public" recording devices. It had to go to the supreme court and yet it still just happened to my neighbor months ago.

On top of that



Two out of three of the examples listed in the article are definitely "private" property and the other example could go either way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe


As for the private property cases, it's up to the owners of the private property to allow or disallow. In those cases, they allowed them. They're essentially saying "photos and video are allowed to be taken here, so enter with no expectation of privacy". If you don't like it, don't attend those private places or speak with the owners.
 

sir-gold

Gawd
Joined
Jan 19, 2006
Messages
931
Except they aren't jamming anything. They are exploiting a weakness in the wifi protocol itself. They sending fake packets to the device which causes it to disconnect itself and reconnect. This is the same thing hackers use to try and break into WPA secured APs. This guy just filters by MAC addresses that google used for the GG devices, and forces them to keep disconnecting/reconnecting.

Jamming an established signal, even for a second, is still jamming. If I repeatedly blasted very short bursts of wide-spectrum spark-gap static (exploiting a flaw in electromagnetism), I would still have the FCC and FBI at my door.

Also, breaking into a WPA router is illegal, so it's not a very good example of reasons why glass-hacking should be OK.
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,592
I don't really understand why everyone flips their shit over Google Glass.

In a lot of cases its because Google. Meanwhile all the majors are quietly developing their own version, that's the irony.
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,636
If it's your wi-fi, just blacklist the MAC ID (device ID part, the rest wildcard). Otherwise, you're just being a dick. I don't like Google Glass, but I don't think it's a game of who can be the bigger asshole. Don't like it, fine. I just hope that those wearing them aren't glassholes and are cool about taking them off when people expect some privacy. Same as I wouldn't be flashing a phone around like I'm filming people.

Also - private areas. Some say they should be allowed. If that holds true, then that goes for movie theaters as well. That won't go over too well.

Google Glass is a good first generation product. I'm sure other brands and versions will become available and we'll all want some.
 

Modred189

Can't Read the OP
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
15,843
If it's your wi-fi, just blacklist the MAC ID (device ID part, the rest wildcard). Otherwise, you're just being a dick. I don't like Google Glass, but I don't think it's a game of who can be the bigger asshole. Don't like it, fine. I just hope that those wearing them aren't glassholes and are cool about taking them off when people expect some privacy. Same as I wouldn't be flashing a phone around like I'm filming people.

Also - private areas. Some say they should be allowed. If that holds true, then that goes for movie theaters as well. That won't go over too well.

Google Glass is a good first generation product. I'm sure other brands and versions will become available and we'll all want some.

Yea, but the thing is, what about us folks with Rx glasses? Can't remove the Glass and still be able to see.
 

EODetroit

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
1,485
If he can do all that, he should go all Tyler Durden and insert single frames of porn onto the glass.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,958
One day, when I'm packing the next gen Glass product and I roll into a place that does this, I'm nailing them for a CFAA violation and the civil equivalent (trespass?), collecting a big check, and smiling all the way to the bank while I watch the idiot pay up to the feds at the same time.

Does this apply if your in a private restaurant / location though?
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,636
Yea, but the thing is, what about us folks with Rx glasses? Can't remove the Glass and still be able to see.

Yea, things like that will complicate things. Not sure how they will work with that. There is already a problem with people using cameras in theaters and they can't solve it. One way would be have a 'theater mode' that the glasses go into while in a theater. Disables the camera. It'd be like the "No-shirt, no-shoes, no service". You have to agree that your device will be disabled to go to the film. A lot of room for abuse, too...

It's those little things that will make adoption difficult. If they are prescription (and your only pair), would you be allowed in a strip club? Probably not.

So, until they figure stuff like that out, carry a second pair of glasses! :)
 

Modred189

Can't Read the OP
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
15,843
So, until they figure stuff like that out, carry a second pair of glasses! :)
Totally agree. And I would have NO problem with a store/theater/restaurant/other place putting a sign up front that SAYS "No google glass." As much as I am looking forward to getting Glass one day, I am in no way going to impose on someone else's legitimate choices.

If they give me fair warning, then I have little room to complain...
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
Jamming an established signal, even for a second, is still jamming. If I repeatedly blasted very short bursts of wide-spectrum spark-gap static (exploiting a flaw in electromagnetism), I would still have the FCC and FBI at my door.

Also, breaking into a WPA router is illegal, so it's not a very good example of reasons why glass-hacking should be OK.


It is not jamming shit..... They are sending a packet to the device that tells it to disconnect itself from the AP. That's it.

And where the F do you get that I said cracking WPA was ok, so it must be ok to 'glass-hack'...
1- obviously cracking an AP is not legal. This was an example of where else this exploit is used.
2- This isn't 'glass-hacking'. There I no hacking going on at all....
 

Cvar

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 6, 2013
Messages
146
I think eventually they will come out with 3g/4g connected google glass and it won't matter if you have wi-fi access as long as you are able to connect to a cell tower.
 

mope54

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
7,452
It is not jamming shit..... They are sending a packet to the device that tells it to disconnect itself from the AP. That's it.

And where the F do you get that I said cracking WPA was ok, so it must be ok to 'glass-hack'...
1- obviously cracking an AP is not legal. This was an example of where else this exploit is used.
2- This isn't 'glass-hacking'. There I no hacking going on at all....
I'll make this easier for you to understand since you seem to be getting hung up on the "hacking" terminology. In the US it's a crime to interfere with wireless communications, regardless of "jamming," "hacking," "intercepting," or otherwise.
 

Phoenix333

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
3,510
Do you guys even READ articles when they're linked to? This guy lives in New Zealand. US laws don't apply there.
 

LordCalin

Gawd
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
901
Considering how easy MAC spoofing is (hell any router or linux box can do it), and that glass is running linux, if this ever became popular people would have work arounds quite easily.
 

Rouzuki

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 11, 2007
Messages
279
I still shake my head whenever anyone actually uses the term "Glasshole". Does anyone seriously think that's cool/clever?
 

Stiler

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Messages
10,538
Why weren't poeple up in arms when the first clel phone with ai camera was invented?

It's not hard at all for someone to "pretend" they are talking ont heir phone when they are just taping something to be oblivious.

Not to mention we already have glasses that you can buy witha camera in them that is no where near as obvious as the google glass is.

It just seems to me like a lot of people want to hate on google glass because it's the "cool" thing to do.
 

JaiWebb

Gawd
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
601
I still shake my head whenever anyone actually uses the term "Glasshole". Does anyone seriously think that's cool/clever?

k-bigpic_01.jpg
 

Coldblackice

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
1,151
Why weren't poeple up in arms when the first clel phone with ai camera was invented?

It's not hard at all for someone to "pretend" they are talking ont heir phone when they are just taping something to be oblivious.

Not to mention we already have glasses that you can buy witha camera in them that is no where near as obvious as the google glass is.

It just seems to me like a lot of people want to hate on google glass because it's the "cool" thing to do.

C'mon, does it really need to be pointed out to you? While saying nothing on the ethics/debate of this, there's a huge effective difference between a handheld cellphone camera and a camera basically infused with one's eye.

With the former, it's readily apparent who's recording who (or at least significantly more difficult to conceal). In the latter, people should expect they're being recorded 100% of the time, even if inadvertently.

Further disconcerting is the latter being layered on top of a human eye, likely adding a bit of unsettled feeling into the mix with a parallel of a surveillance state and all-seeing "eye(s)". Obviously most people won't be consciously aware of this unsettled concern, but it's simple to see how that connection would be made.
 

Draax

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
5,213
For a forum which is dedicated to computer hardware and technology I am amazed how many posters are opposed to emerging technologies.
 

Anemone

Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
903
It is illegal to take people's pictures in public without their permission. Whether that applies to practicality is a different matter. In the UK and France there are public locations where you are not able to film anything, not scenery, buildings or people without a government permit. So don't think there are not already restrictions on just what you can do with a camera.

That said, Glass makes the recording of everyday life a common thing. This is more intrusive than phones. Everyone gets to decide if they like the idea or not. Me I just think the devices should be banned in enough places that no one bothers with them. And they are really bad for your eyes, but that's another matter.

If this invention is used in a private location such as a club or movie theater they are absolutely within their rights to do it. So the technology has useful application. Kudos to the inventor.
 

Anemone

Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
903
My idea was more unkind. There was a Russian yacht owner who built an infra red laser system that sought out camera sensors (forgot the method it detected them with) and when it found one would burn out the sensor by use of lasers. Apparently it was extremely effective.

Wouldn't take much to identify Glass in the same way and invisibly burn the thing out. It's not nice, true. But it makes the point.
 

Mister E

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
2,640
If it's privately owned property with private services being provided to the public/customers, they can be as restrictive as they please. People can get all butt hurt that their choice of device isn't working till they're blue in the face. Deal with it. :cool:
 

Coldblackice

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 14, 2010
Messages
1,151
My idea was more unkind. There was a Russian yacht owner who built an infra red laser system that sought out camera sensors (forgot the method it detected them with) and when it found one would burn out the sensor by use of lasers. Apparently it was extremely effective.

Wouldn't take much to identify Glass in the same way and invisibly burn the thing out. It's not nice, true. But it makes the point.

That would surely be worth the risk of it inadvertently targeting a human eye "sensor". /s

On that note, got a reference for it? Curious to read how it would track and detect :)
 

CreepyUncleGoogle

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
6,871
I think the bigger issue is the asshat who thinks its ok to tamper with my electronics.
IMHO, though not a legal course of action, if you screw with my electronics, you are giving me permission to screw with yours. That means, when I see that goofy wifi antenna sticking out of your bag, I'm ripping it out and tossing it in the river.

Bottom line: I have the right to take pictures and video in public. Even of YOU.
YOU do not have the right to screw with my stuff.

Okay, I totally get that this is a forum and that you're making a male/knee-jerk response which is super unlikely to be how you'd actually respond in the situation we're talking about, but I don't think it's very mature or rational to advocate resorting to physical assault, which is what you'd be doing, as retaliation to having someone disassociate your Glass from a WiFi access point. There's a pretty big difference between stopping a signal and actually coming into physical contact with someone with violent intentions.
 

Modred189

Can't Read the OP
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
15,843
Okay, I totally get that this is a forum and that you're making a male/knee-jerk response which is super unlikely to be how you'd actually respond in the situation we're talking about, but I don't think it's very mature or rational to advocate resorting to physical assault, which is what you'd be doing, as retaliation to having someone disassociate your Glass from a WiFi access point. There's a pretty big difference between stopping a signal and actually coming into physical contact with someone with violent intentions.

Of course. I assumed the /s and /f were obvious.
On the other hand, what's stopping someone from coming up with a Raspberry Pi anti-antiglasshole hack of their own that disables the Pi? Tit for tat.
 

CreepyUncleGoogle

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
6,871
Of course. I assumed the /s and /f were obvious.
On the other hand, what's stopping someone from coming up with a Raspberry Pi anti-antiglasshole hack of their own that disables the Pi? Tit for tat.

My meters were obviously broken. :)

That'd be interesting though, if there were countermeasures. It'd turn into a disable your disabler that disables my disabler and probably just end up with the WiFi spectrum being a mess of localized transmissions which is just kinda stupid all around. :( I don't see why it's such a big deal for businesses or individuals to ask nicely for Glass to go away and for Glass owners to be civil and take them off. Sure, I think it shouldn't even exist and Google as a company ought to die in a fire because they're evil, creepy, and do nothing at all to benefit the world and it should be okay for Glass owners to be shunned by normal people and treated like sub-human walking tripods for the Eye of Google, but its really the company exploiting shortsighted gadget lovers that really is at the root of the problem.
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
My idea was more unkind. There was a Russian yacht owner who built an infra red laser system that sought out camera sensors (forgot the method it detected them with) and when it found one would burn out the sensor by use of lasers. Apparently it was extremely effective.

Wouldn't take much to identify Glass in the same way and invisibly burn the thing out. It's not nice, true. But it makes the point.


Yea because nothing bad could happen shooting a laser powerful enough to destroy a camera sensor, at a camera less than an inch from the users eye....
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,710
I still shake my head whenever anyone actually uses the term "Glasshole". Does anyone seriously think that's cool/clever?

I would remove the Gl. Clarifies the situation and not as goofy sounding.
 
Top