A C-H-A-O-S.com entry with the following disclaimer caught our eye (and not necessarily because of the grammar):
If you keep reading you'll be agreeing not to use the knowledge you may gain to any unlawfull (sic) behavior but for educational usage only.
The project tries to solve the conundrums surrounding "how to remotely disable security cameras nondestructively from quite a distance."
The author frames his motivation thusly:
"A lot of my inspiration comes from movies and for quite some time I have become more and more annoyed by Hollywoods sometimes rather silly solutions for an agent to shut down security cameras in order to remain undetected: E.g. blowing up the nearby power-plant or rigging up gadgets in sewers, where they can be detected by renovation workers and the sorts. If you blow something up or otherwise break it, your counterpart will immediately know it is sabotage and rule out a simple technical malfunction.
"Another thing that got me to write this article is the abundant usage of surveillance cameras everywhere which makes me want to burst the bubble about security of surveillance cameras by exposing their weakness."
And here's a summary of how he'd use a scope, a laser, and a cellphone to blind surveillance cameras:
"I had some serious thoughts about how to trigger the laser on and off. First, I thought Id use an old wrist watch as a timer, but ended up discarding that idea . . . It just didnt feel right and if the 'agent' had to shut down several security cameras, he would not only have to synchronize all the watches and set them up to turn the lasers on at the exact right time at once, but also turn them off after the job. My second idea was to remotely trigger the laser by radio or walkie-talkie. This would give the agent the possibility of e.g. pressing the call button on the walkie which would send out a beep to activate the lasers needed.
"The problem with this solution is that by using a standard walkie, everybody else could activate the lasers accidently if they where using the same channel (keep in mind that almost all baby-alarms use the standard walkie-talkie frequency). So unless I were to use pro walkie with encryption, Id have to modify my plans a bit.
In the search for a transmitter/receiver solution that both had range and some sort of signal coding, it hit me: cellphones. But how well will this actually work?"Well, after I build this, I had to try it out on an old security camera . . . Then I had some friends sending it a test-SMS and finally I had someone I knew across the Atlantic do it as well . . . No problem there, either. It worked like a charm."
So if you use this "knowledge" and it doesn't work? All part of his plan:
"In case youve missed the huge warning sign Ive put up or choose to disregard it and are thinking about using the knowledge youve just gained to be messing with something you shouldnt . . . Think about this: Maybe I left some minor, but crucial details out so assholes wont be messing with something they shouldnt be messing with . . . without getting their asses busted. So dont!!!"
Damn right . . . uh, what?
(Gouge: CM)
-- Ward
