- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
Minnesota burglars are using Wi-Fi jammers to disable home security systems::undefined
You must log in or register to comment.
If it is running over Wi-Fi it isn’t really security, it is a toy. At the very best a visual deterrent for opportunistic people.
So is all the locks on your door…
You can have a metal door with 3 deadbolts and a cast iron storm door also padlocked.
Still takes a small rock to break a window.
“So are all”
And yes I agree, if people want to get in they are going to get in but a lot of people buying these cameras some how think they are suddenly immune to crime.
Devils advocate: A masked figure who walked to my property and stole my stuff doesn’t solve who did it. If someone doesn’t want to get caught, there are always ways to prevent it.
Note: I don’t think people think they’re immune but they may not realize wifi can be jammed. Wired is better than wireless but sometimes wireless is the only way or only way to provide a camera to a certain spot that wouldn’t be covered otherwise. And then there’s renting where wired mods to the home/property may not be permitted. There are some use cases that make sense.
“So are all”
Eh, depends.
All precautions you can take are just visual deterrents
Is correct, but so is
All precautions you can take is just a visual deterrent.
Because it’s talking about a singular group of things, whether you use “deterrents” or “deterrent” is what determines if an “is” or “are” is used.
The singular/plural is about if your talking about a bunch of visual deterrents or everything adding up into a singular visual deterrent.
So talking about “locks” as a group gets a singular deterrent and “is”. Logically it’s that all the locks are one singular visual deterrent rather than each lock being it’s own.
Doesn’t really matter tho, English is a pretty stupid language.
‘All precautions’ is plural, so you have to use ‘are’. Using ‘is’ is in no way correct there; the ‘deterrents’ bit has nothing to do with it
By your rational the first person should have said:
If they are running over Wi-Fi they aren’t really security, they are just toys. At the very best they are visual deterrents for opportunistic people
But they didn’t, they said:
If it is running over Wi-Fi it isn’t really security, it is a toy. At the very best a visual deterrent for opportunistic people
Even though they were talking about security systems which have more than one component even if only one camera.
The “visual deterrent” made the whole sentence singular. Just like when I referenced a group of locks.
Like
His baseball card collection is his most important possession.
That collection is a lot of individual things, but the group is singular.
Theres multiple locks, but we’re talking about them as a group being a singular visual deterrent.
Like I said, English is a stupid language. Like how we list adjectives in a certain order, we know when it’s right or wrong, but ask someone to explain why and they usually can’t.
Don’t have the time to get into a grammar debate. Just letting you know why you’re being downvoted since no one else told you why your statement is incorrect
Oh ok…
Thanks for replying to say you’re not replying I guess
Doesn’t seem like a good use of time tho.
The fact you used your possessive instead of you’re in “if your talking about” pretty much discredits anything you had to say there.
Oh yeah, for sure.
A phone typo immediately let’s you know that person doesn’t know grammar.
Whilst usually I would agree if you are attempting to be a pedant about grammar you should probably use correct grammar…
Not really being a pedant.
Someone corrected me, and I clarified that whether it’s singular or plural is kind of ambiguous which make both correct.
Because like I said, English is stupid. And even native speakers who follow all of its rules can’t explain them.
Think about that for a second, we all get over a decade of learning the language, and we’re mostly going off gut feeling when we use it. We may know a few rules, but not all the excepttions and rare cases the rule is wrong.
Since someone cared enough to point out the general rule, I explained the rare exception. Because I thought they’d care.
Reminds me of one of my favorite scenes from Burn Notice.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
At the very best a visual deterrent for opportunistic people.
That’s what all security is though.
No security system is going to prevent someone from just kicking in your door and stealing your shit in 2 minutes, then leaving.
But it’s great for insurance purposes and tracking down people after they leave. And if your door or window is opened during the middle of the night, an alarm system is going to be fantastic for alerting you to someone in your house.
WiFi security systems perform their function of deterrence, monitoring, and insurance claims just fine.
Wow, I haven’t seen a more head-ass take since Linus last opened his mouth…
So setting everything up wired with PoE was a pain, but worth it.
This, but don’t forget to plug the router to a UPS!
A pain and obviously I wish to never have a use for the recordings….
They can’t do that, it’s illegal!
Can’t we make crime illegal already?
Maybe not in Minnesota??
I guess if you’re going to break the law anyway what’s one more lawbreak. But I thought the FCC actively tracked down people using illegal frequency devices?
thought the FCC actively tracked down people using illegal frequency devices?
It depends on the frequency being deployed. Shit operating in the 2/5 ghz spectrum doesn’t travel far at all, so unless an FCC agent is directly nearby when they’re doing this, it’s not going to be detected by them.
However, if you’re illegally blasting in the <1k mhz spectrum, that does travel far and more importantly it interferes with common bands used by public safety, air traffic controllers, DoD, etc (ATC is around 100mhz, public safety typically around 800mhz, DoD around 300mhz (although this varies)). That interference will definitely start being noticed and it’s a matter of time before you’re caught.
I’m pretty sure those jammers (they saturate wifi band with trafic) are used only for burglary time, say 10-15 minutes, and very local, so the neighbour million$ mansion is far enough that they are not affected. How come FCC detect this?
The FCC knows where my microwave is?
You bet they do. They have trackers in every microwave sold. That’s how they track Taylor Swift to influence the Russians. -s
Don’t many of the wifi cameras include local recording to SD cards?
Sure, but I wager many folks go with the easiest route and just rely on cloud storage or possibly local central storage.
Regardless, hardwire is best for any “critical” system to avoid shit like this. I’ve been telling my family for years that once common criminals adapted to the times, people with wireless everything smart homes were going to be in for a world of hurt. My reason being that the vast majority of IoT type crap are notoriously riddled with easily exploitable vulnerabilities. WiFi jamming isn’t anything new or even complex, but it’s just the tip of the iceberg of what’s to come for low tier criminals, IMO. We truly are entering the early stages of the cyberpunk era, but without all the cool cyberware implants (yet).
They may not care about being filmed, so much as being able to call the cops while they’re in the middle of robbing you.
The article stated that they are watching the homes and going in when no one is home in order to avoid any confrontation.
Exactly. They are trying to avoid confrontation, so they don’t want people seeing someone on their security camera and calling the cops.
If you get an alert that there’s motion in your living room, you may check and would call the cops if you see something. If you get an alert that your camera is disconnected you quietly curse your ISP and continue about your day.
“Minnesota”? Everyone, c’mon
