And don't forget to report those cameras to the authorities, since in many countries it is completely illegal to film people without their consent (in private places).
Interestingly enough, it's also completely illegal in the US to de-auth a WiFi client which is exactly what this is doing and the disclaimer is hardly accurate:
Two wrongs really don't make a right. Without physically locating the camera you have no idea what is being deauthed. It could be a camera monitoring a locked (unavailable to the guest) room or even a neighbors camera. Not everyone out there is a perv and there are entirely legitimate and expected uses for WiFi cameras which are not creepy.
It would be better to locate the camera and if in a location where privacy is expected, simply call the police because who knows how many other victims there may have been and who knows how creepy the person who put it there is.
The relevant text of the FCC enforcement advisory you just linked to is:
"No hotel, convention center, or other commercial establishment or the network operator providing services at such establishments may intentionally block or disrupt
personal Wi-Fi hot spots on such premises, including as part of an effort to force consumers to purchase access to the property owner's Wi-Fi network. Such action is illegal and violations could lead to the assessment of substantial monetary penalties."
Clarification: Sending deauth packets on networks you control is fine. The issue the FCC is taking is with systems that send deauth packets to other networks.
Stepping aside from legality, and speaking purely from ethics, there's a big difference between "hiring someone to provide a service for your own private home" and "renting out a temporary place of residence for someone".
Ethically speaking I'd say it's completely okay to monitor the former, whether that service is a plumber or a babysitter, and whether the monitoring is done with a camera or your own human eyes. Those service personnel shouldn't be expecting privacy while they provide services, anyway.
Ethically speaking I'd say it's wrong and a violation of privacy to monitor the latter, regardless of whether it is done with camera or eyes, without prior warning. This is because providing a place of residence implies providing some level of privacy. Forget cameras, you shouldn't generally enter a tenant's place of residence even with your human eyes, without letting them know in advance (e.g. at the very least by knocking).
Yes. And I am in the position to demand it, or take another position. So we get a privacy divide within society: cleaners, waiters etc don't have an expectation of privacy, those higher up do.
> Do you expect privacy when you're in a shopping mall?
No, everybody can walk in and out at any time.
> You're in a building controlled by someone else, no renting going on. What is your rule for when privacy is expected?
Well, you have touched upon that yourself in your previous question: if a place is open to public you can not expect privacy obviously. When you are in a private place, the default should be to expect privacy unless explicity noticed otherwise.
I feel like you are actually advocating some 1984 here on freakin' HN!
You're a plumber in my house. I feel like I fully have the right to watch you as you repair my plumbing. You're a babysitter in my house. Babysitting my hypothetical baby. I feel like I would have the right to watch over that baby's treatment in someone else's hands. If you aren't going to let me watch over the quality of your services, I would just find someone else to provide those services.
At some point, once we have established a degree of trust, I would probably watch over you less and less. This is quality control, not a privacy violation.
I do agree that within a single organization, such as a software company, employees need to have some level of privacy from each other in order to work efficiently and happily. That is also facilitated by an environment of mutual trust established by the company itself. That's a very different situation from an individual contracting the services of another individual, who are not a priori related to each other.
I'd say that if you're renting to someone else, it's still your property so you should be free to monitor it, but not disclosing the presence of cameras or other monitoring devices should be illegal.
Ownership is a bundle of rights. In the U.S., if you have rented out a property you "own" to another person, you do not have the right to enter that property without prior notice or consent of that person.
The US is a fucked up place because they want to make sure a babysitter doesn't shake their baby to death or a housecleaner doesn't break or pocket something without admitting it? Hyperbole much?
I mean, if we extend your logic, we should monitor everyone at all times because someone might just accidentally do something to hurt your child right? You never know why an extremely rare event like you mentioned could happen.
Everyone is usually being monitored when around children of strangers; we just usually do so with human eyes instead of cameras. Babysitting is an exception, but why should it be?
That's... just not really true. Maybe in some parts of extreme helicopter parenting, but it's really not a global truth. If what you say is true in US then perhaps the upper poster wasn't so wrong about the state of the country :/.
Pretty what? All sentences are ambiguous if you try hard enough. If you could tell what the meaning was, why are you insulting a strawman while actively admitting it is a strawman?
"It may be illegal to use this script in the US."
There's no "may" about it. It is illegal:
https://www.fcc.gov/document/warning-wi-fi-blocking-prohibit...
Two wrongs really don't make a right. Without physically locating the camera you have no idea what is being deauthed. It could be a camera monitoring a locked (unavailable to the guest) room or even a neighbors camera. Not everyone out there is a perv and there are entirely legitimate and expected uses for WiFi cameras which are not creepy.
It would be better to locate the camera and if in a location where privacy is expected, simply call the police because who knows how many other victims there may have been and who knows how creepy the person who put it there is.