From: Ron DuFresne (dufresne
Date: Wed May 01 2002 - 15:37:28 CDT

YEs, I cover this in the paper I have ready for release once I find
a proper forum for publishing it out to. From that paper:

Another perspective on information traversing the airwaves comes from an
article in the local papers recently here, The Durham herald Sun, Sunday
April 14 2002, titled: Nanny-cams make homes vulnerable, reprinted from
the New York Times, by John Schwartz. The article relates the current use
of X10 and XCam2 devices being heavily marketed on the web as home
security and small business solutions. These wireless devices are
sniffable in the same fashion as wireless networking devices are,
offering the sniffer full video feedback, they incorporate no encryption
what-so-ever. The authors talked to Clifford S. Fishman a law professor
the Catholic University of America and an author himself of a leading work
on surveillance law, Wiretapping and Eavesdropping. Professor Fishman
mentions there are clear laws on such eavesdropping, most current laws
deal with the interceptions of sound, not video, and most are geared
towards the telephone systems and their signal processing.

The article sighted mentions how easy one can scarf up a video feed from
one of these devices. giving a direct picture to whatever these toys are
pointed to observe. It's a good read, I'd go search out the original


Ron DuFresne

  • home security camera system?
  • Remote recording & Management
  • Security Camera Cheap!
  • IP cameras in new facility
  • Wi-Fi For Home Security
  • Source: Remington security camera
  • Setting up a security camera with retired Macs
  • Tips against home burglary
  • Cellular Security Cameras: Mobile Phone Tech As A Platform
  • viewing streaming video from company
  • Which webcam for home security?
  • Security Camera News