Re: Google Exposes Web Surveillance Cams

[Riad S. Wahby]

Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>with the discovery that a pair of simple Google searches permits

I love how all of the coverage leaves out the actual search strings, as
if it's hard to discover what they are at this point.

http://www.google.com/search?q=inurl%3A%22ViewerFrame%3FMode%3D%22
http://www.google.com/search?q=inurl%3A%22MultiCameraFrame%3FMode%3D%22

Perhaps there are others as well; this is what 10 seconds of googling
revealed.  (There's something strangely meta about using google to
discover a google search string.)

-- 
Riad S. Wahby
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Google Exposes Web Surveillance Cams

[Anton Raath]

Riad S. Wahby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I love how all of the coverage leaves out the actual search strings, as
> if it's hard to discover what they are at this point.

A fairly comprehensive list of search strings per camera/manufacturer
can be found here:

http://www.i-hacked.com/Computer-Components/Software-Internet/Finding-Online-Webcams!.html

A!
-- 
==
anton l. raath   http://raath.org/
==
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
  -- Dylan Thomas
==

Re: Google Exposes Web Surveillance Cams

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 02:20 PM 1/9/05 -0600, Riad S. Wahby wrote:

>I love how all of the coverage leaves out the actual search strings, as

>if it's hard to discover what they are at this point.

I'm similarly annoyed that articles omit the URLs of "terrorist web
sites",
being forced to check ogrish.com, even if I couldn't read the language.

But government and its presses know best.