‘Cyborg Unplug’ Is a Personal Jammer Against Drones, Glassholes

[Renegade]

This is a nifty gadget:

http://betabeat.com/...t-drones-glassholes/

Everyone from professional photographers to Martha Stewart is using little quadcopter drones to take stunning landscape videos and aerial photographs. But if you’re a glass-half-empty type — or maybe just a shoot-that-drone-out-of-the-air type — there’s now a handy tech toy to defend you from unwanted surveillance.

An upcoming device called Cyborg Unplug will allow you to disrupt the connections of drones, Google glass, wireless microphones, and other devices to your WiFi connection. The project is led by Glasshole-hater Julian Oliver, and lists the dystopian ‘Stop the Cyborgs’ campaign as an inspiration and “conspirator.”

“Whether business office, restaurant, school or nightclub: it’s your territory and your rules, so make it harder for those that seek to abuse it,” the Cyborg Unplug site says.

The small device “sniffs the air” for the WiFi signatures of unwanted surveillance devices and automatically disconnects them from the network it’s assigned to protect. Cyborg Unplug will be up for sale in the $50 – $100 range on September 30. So far, it can’t interrupt Bluetooth connections, but they’re working on that.

Besides protecting your own network, the device also has an “All Out Mode” that can disconnect unwanted devices in range from every network they’re connected to, including tethered cellphones.

The trouble is, this is totally illegal in America. In the FCC’s own, unambiguous words:

We remind and warn consumers that it is a violation of federal law to use a cell jammer or similar devices that intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications such as cell phones, police radar, GPS, and Wi-Fi.

On the Cyborg Unplug site, they absolve themselves of all responsibility should you run into trouble with the law.

“We take no responsibility for the trouble you get yourself into if you choose to deploy your Cyborg Unplug in this mode,” the site says.

Drones? They’ve got your back. But when it comes to the Feds, you’re on your own.

Site: http://plugunplug.net

Cyborg Unplug is a wireless anti-surveillance system for the home and workplace. 'Plug to Unplug', it detects and kicks devices known to pose a risk to personal privacy from your local wireless network, breaking uploads and streams. Detected devices currently include: Google Glass, Dropcam, small drones/copters, wireless 'spy' microphones and various other network-dependent surveillance devices.

...


HOW DOES IT WORK?

Every wireless (WiFi) device has a unique hardware signature assigned to it by the manufacturer. These signatures are broadcasted by wireless devices as they probe for, connect to and use wireless networks.

Cyborg Unplug sniffs the air for these signatures, looking for devices its owner has selected to ban. If a banned device is discovered an alarm is triggered (LED, audio or message*). Further, if that device is found to be connected to a network that Cyborg Unplug is trained to guard, a stream of special 'de-authentication' signals (packets) are sent to disconnect it. It does this automatically, without any interaction required from its owner.

* Due to technical limitations, alarm features may be restricted to the high-priced model.
IS THIS LEGAL?

It is perfectly legal to block certain devices from using a network you control and administer. Some wireless routers allow an administrator to create blacklists, although generally they are limited to specific devices rather than an entire product. Cyborg Unplug is just as legal, differing only in that it takes a 'direct action' approach to wireless defense: a detect-and-disconnect routine, alarm system and an automatically updated list of devices able to be banned. Please see CAN IT BE USED TO DISCONNECT DEVICES FROM ANY NETWORK? below for more information.
IS THIS A JAMMER?

No, not in any stretch of the word. A jammer disrupts all signal within a given (radio) band by flooding it with noise. Cyborg Unplug does not do this. Rather, it detects and targets a specific device and disconnects (only) it in turn by sending the same, legal, de-authentication packets a router sends when it disconnects a device.

...


CAN IT BE USED TO DISCONNECT DEVICES FROM ANY NETWORK?

In short yes. But be sure to read on to understand the implications...

Cyborg Unplug can be operated in two modes. The recommended mode is Territory Mode, disconnecting target devices from selected network(s) owned and operated by the user. The other mode is All Out Mode, which disconnects all detected target devices from any network they are associated with, including paired connections with smartphones. Please note that this latter mode may not be legal within your jurisdiction. We take no responsibility for the trouble you get yourself into if you choose to deploy your Cyborg Unplug in this mode.

More at the site.

From here:

http://julianoliver....log_2014-05-30_20-52

Code: Text [Select]

1. echo '
2.    ___           _ __    __                     __             __        __  
3.   / _ \___  ___ ( ) /_  / /  ___   ___ _  ___ _/ /__ ____ ___ / /  ___  / /__
4.  / // / _ \/ _ \|/ __/ / _ \/ -_) / _ `/ / _ `/ / _ `(_-<(_-</ _ \/ _ \/ / -_)
5. /____/\___/_//_/ \__/ /_.__/\__/  \_,_/  \_, /_/\_,_/___/___/_//_/\___/_/\__/
6.                                         /___/                                
7. '

I love stuff like this!  

[wraith808]

It seems useless other than the illegal in the US part, i.e. disconnecting anyone from any network.  You can stop people from connecting to your network by the expedient of wi-fi security.  And not all people that use glass are using it inappropriately... I'd dare say, most of the ones that I know are not using it in any way that would intrude on anyone else's privacy.

[Stoic Joker]

And not all people that use glass are using it inappropriately... I'd dare say, most of the ones that I know are not using it in any way that would intrude on anyone else's privacy.

-wraith808 (September 10, 2014, 08:45 AM)

Given the potential for complications if one was to show up in the wrong persons video diaries ... I would be in favor of jamming the feed. Because if you're filming me without my knowledge/consent...then you're violating my privacy.

[wraith808]

And not all people that use glass are using it inappropriately... I'd dare say, most of the ones that I know are not using it in any way that would intrude on anyone else's privacy.

-wraith808 (September 10, 2014, 08:45 AM)

Given the potential for complications if one was to show up in the wrong persons video diaries ... I would be in favor of jamming the feed. Because if you're filming me without my knowledge/consent...then you're violating my privacy.

-Stoic Joker (September 10, 2014, 11:49 AM)

You're filmed everywhere you go pretty much.  It's not as bad as the UK, but one of the first things the police do is to look for banks, ATMs, and Convenience stores in the region near any crime because of that.  I think it's bad form to actively film someone without their consent, but again, the bulk of the people with Glass that I know don't do that.  And I thought about getting it for development purposes, but it's way too much for what it does.

[Stoic Joker]

And not all people that use glass are using it inappropriately... I'd dare say, most of the ones that I know are not using it in any way that would intrude on anyone else's privacy.

-wraith808 (September 10, 2014, 08:45 AM)

Given the potential for complications if one was to show up in the wrong persons video diaries ... I would be in favor of jamming the feed. Because if you're filming me without my knowledge/consent...then you're violating my privacy.

-Stoic Joker (September 10, 2014, 11:49 AM)

You're filmed everywhere you go pretty much.  It's not as bad as the UK, but one of the first things the police do is to look for banks, ATMs, and Convenience stores in the region near any crime because of that.  I think it's bad form to actively film someone without their consent, but again, the bulk of the people with Glass that I know don't do that.  And I thought about getting it for development purposes, but it's way too much for what it does.

-wraith808 (September 10, 2014, 01:32 PM)

The local Harley Davidson dealer lets one of the idiot kids behind the parts counter wear the Google glasses while on duty. So far the kids been lucky as I haven't run into him when I was in the right (wrong...) mood. However if those stars do ever line up...it ain't going to be pretty.

[rjbull]

if you're filming me without my knowledge/consent...then you're violating my privacy.

-Stoic Joker (September 10, 2014, 11:49 AM)

As wraith points out, here in the UK we are constantly surveilled.  On the other hand, and as I understand UK law, if you're in a public place, your face is photographically public property.  "Public" is underlined because a lot of places you'd think are public, aren't; commonly shopping centres that are privately owned.  Despite the law there's been much aggravation in recent years from over-zealous police citing terrorism and from anti-paedophile vigilantism.  UK magazine Amateur Photographer has been campaigning against police abuse.

[Stoic Joker]

if you're filming me without my knowledge/consent...then you're violating my privacy.

-Stoic Joker (September 10, 2014, 11:49 AM)

As wraith points out, here in the UK we are constantly surveilled.

-rjbull (September 10, 2014, 03:35 PM)

Oh well gee wiz...I guess if it's the new normal then it must be just fine then ... Not!

It's one thing for a business to put up cameras - most of which are on either a closed loop, or just have shit for storage. They are static and reasonably avoidable. It is however quite another thing for some individual who arrogantly thinking their entire waking life moment by moment is worth documenting decides to include me in their home movies. Then they end up on some LEO's radar, who want's to "talk to" everyone on dipsticks movie...and I get flushed down the rabbit hole with them.

No... That is not acceptable. And once it gets explained to said errant fool it is going to come down to a simple question of which one of us is about to use what method to turn off that camera ... because the camera is about to get turned off.

[SeraphimLabs]

Practical use for a business would be where you have a wireless network in which your employees know the key to use it. You can then set one of these to selectively kick off common models of cameras or phones to protect sensitive company information or to keep employees focused on their work and not their facebook.

For home use it isnt really that useful- but if my neighbors continue to jam my wifi with their poorly configured gear I would love to have one of these in hand for search and destroy.

[wraith808]

No... That is not acceptable. And once it gets explained to said errant fool it is going to come down to a simple question of which one of us is about to use what method to turn off that camera ... because the camera is about to get turned off.

-Stoic Joker (September 10, 2014, 05:27 PM)

Like I said, it's not alright to film people without permission.  But by the same token, we can also not be in the same area, i.e. one or the other remove ourselves.  I think that both extreme sides of the argument are just plain wrong.

The friends I know do just what is intended... use recording among friends and family at certain events.  But that doesn't mean that they don't wear them at other times... and that seems to be what people get paranoid about- even though they are doing nothing wrong.  No filming, no nothing.  How is that right?

[Target]

The friends I know do just what is intended... use recording among friends and family at certain events.  But that doesn't mean that they don't wear them at other times... and that seems to be what people get paranoid about- even though they are doing nothing wrong.  No filming, no nothing.  How is that right?

-wraith808 (September 10, 2014, 11:23 PM)

unfortunately it's the same old story where the few spoil things for the many.

too many people still don't realise that the internet is forever, and what someone thinks is harmless or a bit of a joke now could have real consequences far into the future

that and the fact that the media have trained us to be paranoid about both the technology and the people who use it (for whatever reason).

[Renegade]

Here's an example - Say Cindy Citizen Journalist is filming herself on the steps of city hall to get the news out about the horrible new by-law making it illegal to park your car with the windows down! The frame isn't zoomed into only her nose, but rather a more reasonable full body shot with the sinister den of iniquity (city hall) behind her. People are still going about their business and most people walk behind her, but are clearly visible in the frame. Shy Stan walks behind her and is also captured in the video.

QUESTIONS:

• What is Cindy filming?
• Is Stan "being filmed"?

The first is obvious - Cindy is filming herself in front of city hall.

The second has 2 answers - yes and no. Those 2 answers have very different presuppositions regarding "filming".

Yes assumes that anything in the frame is "being filmed".

No assumes that the intent and main focus of the frame is what is "being filmed".

But, that's just one example of a focused recording, and doesn't include the "Google Glass" scenario.

For general surveillance cameras, it seems that we would usually say that whatever is in the frame is being filmed, similar to the "Yes" answer above. i.e. Shy Stan walks past a surveillance camera, so, he *IS* being filmed.

Does the same apply to Google Glass?

If not, would we then say that someone is being filmed (by GG) if they are framed and in focus, but not being filmed if their appearance in a frame is incidental? Where does the line start to blur?

This site has a lot to say on the topic:

http://stopthecyborgs.org/

[wraith808]

But... what if they aren't filming?  They're trying to stop anyone from wearing/using them.  Just because there is the 'possibility'.  Just for one possible use.  It's a device that can do a *lot* of things... and this one use is the one that they're trying to get the whole thing thrown away because of.  And it's funny that most of the people on the other side of the issue, are those that are usually for the freedom.

Seems pretty simple to me.  It takes an active use in a manner that offends/is an imposition to others before anyone else has a right to step in.

[Renegade]

But... what if they aren't filming?  They're trying to stop anyone from wearing/using them.  Just because there is the 'possibility'.  Just for one possible use.  It's a device that can do a *lot* of things... and this one use is the one that they're trying to get the whole thing thrown away because of.  And it's funny that most of the people on the other side of the issue, are those that are usually for the freedom.

Seems pretty simple to me.  It takes an active use in a manner that offends/is an imposition to others before anyone else has a right to step in.

-wraith808 (September 11, 2014, 07:08 AM)

I've not made up my mind quite yet. Which is why I posed questions above.

But I certainly do like the technology! 

Here's another example...

You have a coffee shop or bar near a university where you offer free Wi-Fi, but disallow Google Glass. Since it's your place, well... you make the rules.

Conversely, if I'm a patron, and you change your policy to allow Google Glass, and I disagree with that, I can't see how I can legitimately block GG on your premises from your Wi-Fi.

The issue gets muddier in public places. But, that would seem to be already covered by harassment or stalking laws.

Dunno. Haven't thought about it too much. I can see both sides of the coin. I'm leaning towards zero restrictions on GG in public places. It's really no different than someone walking around with a video camera.

Is following someone (who doesn't want to be filmed) in a public place with a video camera harassment? Possibly. I can imagine scenarios where it clearly would be. I can also imagine other scenarios where it wouldn't be. Muddy.

[wraith808]

Dunno. Haven't thought about it too much. I can see both sides of the coin. I'm leaning towards zero restrictions on GG in public places. It's really no different than someone walking around with a video camera.

-Renegade (September 11, 2014, 07:32 AM)

I think it is.  With a video camera, there is only one purpose.  And you have to point and shoot.  But there are also covert video cameras that have nothing to do with GG.  But I've been looking at my phone, and someone gave me the stinkeye... and I figured out only after thinking about it they were paranoid that because the camera was pointed at them, that I was taking pictures or something.  Is that my problem?  Or is that theirs?

Is following someone (who doesn't want to be filmed) in a public place with a video camera harassment? Possibly. I can imagine scenarios where it clearly would be. I can also imagine other scenarios where it wouldn't be. Muddy.

-Renegade (September 11, 2014, 07:32 AM)

It's not just a video camera.  That's the whole difference to me.  When I was going to get it... I wasn't even looking at the video applications.  I was looking at it as an HUD.  I hate being on camera, or even having pictures taken of me... that whole lifeblogging thing is mind boggling to me... I just hate videos and pictures, or even watching people's vlogs.  But it had a whole wide world of applications that I could use it for.

I do think google isn't doing itself any favors by not trying to get the price down.  More people would push these things to the fore sooner than later.  As it is stands, others are driving the dialog... which makes it a toss up how it will end.

[Stoic Joker]

The issue gets muddier in public places. But, that would seem to be already covered by harassment or stalking laws.

-Renegade (September 11, 2014, 07:32 AM)

No it doesn't. You simply need to overlay what is prudent and everything becomes nice and clear. Sure if you are in a coffee shop next to/near a university it is safe to assume that most folk will be equally enamored with whatever piece of camera based tech you wish to be fiddling with. However...

If you are in a dive bar at the edge of town the very last thing you want to be associated with is any kind of recording equipment ... Because some folks take being camera shy to a very (very...) serious level ... And "I didn't know" makes for a rather lousy epitaph.

Now multiply ^that^ times the amount of attention you might end up getting from the fuzz regarding that footage of yours they'd like to see ...(and talk to you about in depth)... and I do believe that the angle at which the concept of less is more becomes rather obvious.


No, I'll be getting quite interested in finding an unplug app for my phone...even if I have to side load it.

[wraith808]

No, I'll be getting quite interested in finding an unplug app for my phone...even if I have to side load it.

-Stoic Joker (September 11, 2014, 01:47 PM)

Then at that point you'll be interacting with someone's device that they may (and most likely will be) using for non-nefarious purposes.  How is that even tolerable?  

And I quote:

Besides protecting your own network, the device also has an “All Out Mode” that can disconnect unwanted devices in range from every network they’re connected to, including tethered cellphones.

How is that even reasonable?

[Deozaan]

This is kind of a non-issue now that there are things like Android Wear, which has about 80-90% of the benefits and convenience of Glass without the drawbacks including potential privacy invasion of others.

[wraith808]

A watch is not the same as glasses...  if you wanted to make glass without the privacy concerns, just don't include the ability to record or stream.  That would be the same as Android Wear.  I'm in it for the HUD, personally... and unless I missed something, you can't do that with a watch.

[Stoic Joker]

No, I'll be getting quite interested in finding an unplug app for my phone...even if I have to side load it.

-Stoic Joker (September 11, 2014, 01:47 PM)

Then at that point you'll be interacting with someone's device that they may (and most likely will be) using for non-nefarious purposes.  How is that even tolerable?

-wraith808 (September 11, 2014, 01:57 PM)

Have you ever heard of the never bring a camera to a bachelor party rule?? ...It's kinda like that.

You seem to be missing some very important hints I've been giving about location location location. Because there is a time and place for everything...and very (very...) bad place(s) for misunderstandings to occur ....Savvy?

[wraith808]

No, I'll be getting quite interested in finding an unplug app for my phone...even if I have to side load it.

-Stoic Joker (September 11, 2014, 01:47 PM)

Then at that point you'll be interacting with someone's device that they may (and most likely will be) using for non-nefarious purposes.  How is that even tolerable?

-wraith808 (September 11, 2014, 01:57 PM)

Have you ever heard of the never bring a camera to a bachelor party rule?? ...It's kinda like that.

You seem to be missing some very important hints I've been giving about location location location. Because there is a time and place for everything...and very (very...) bad place(s) for misunderstandings to occur ....Savvy?

-Stoic Joker (September 11, 2014, 04:05 PM)

No, I don't miss the hints about location.  We're talking about in general.  And I'd think that most people that use this type of tech wouldn't be in certain locations.  And if they are, and have this... or really any sort of recording device, they're going to be in a world of trouble.