All this controversy is showing is if the surveillance device is obvious, people get upset. If its hidden, people seem to be okay with it.
Like, your tvs have cameras inside your home watching you and sending that to a corporation but some dude with glasses out in public is the line? Like, it makes zero sense to me. People embraced all these video, audio, location and other surveillance data gathering devices throughout their lives but the glasses are too far? None of this shit should be acceptable.
RaoulDook@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Great use of tech and knowledge. Video-recording glasses wearers can’t complain about this because they are sending the Bluetooth signals to be detected.
We need to scale this idea up - apps to detect the known types of signals emitting from camera systems like Flock, Ring, and other similar mass surveillance garbage.
EisFrei@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
There are a few BLE Radar/Scanner Apps Like this. f-droid.org/packages/f.cking.software
You just need to know the Mac address range of the manufacturer and can get notified if body cams, smart glasses or anything else using Bluetooth is in the vicinity
RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Not legal but if you have a phone or dongle capable of packet injection you could probably deauth Ring devices automatically as soon as you are close enough to pick up their MAC address.
I assume they still record locally so unless you plan on stealing it it’ll just be a minor annoyance.
01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 1 hour ago
Laws are different in different places, but I’ve never read that a deauth attack is illegal, as long as (and this part is important) you don’t try to hijack the packets being sent.