6 ms·

this article is actually just an advertisement for this product. https://www.senteltechsecurity.com/lawmate-dd802-defender.html https://www.senteltechsecurity.c

by ouid 8y ago

this article is actually just an advertisement for this product. https://www.senteltechsecurity.com/lawmate-dd802-defender.html https://www.senteltechsecurity.com/lawmate-dd802-defender.ht...

aboutruby 8y ago
Any alternative you would recommend then?
- vertexFarm 8y ago
  https://www.ebay.com/itm/Anti-Spy-Hidden-Camera-Lens-Bug-Detector-GSM-GPS-Signal-Finder-RF-Tracker-Audio/302808197942?epid=4008810412&hash=item4680c66b36:g:ubMAAOSwUMxaAAfo:rk:1:pf:0 https://www.ebay.com/itm/Anti-Spy-Hidden-Camera-Lens-Bug-Det... Probably way crappier, but for what these electronics entail the one sold by the website in the post is vastly overpriced. It's a very simple radio, a battery, some LEDs, and an optical filter of some kind. Likely just a red gel. Plus, how great of a bug detector do most people really need? The main features are all there and it's probably workable in most cases. Disclaimer, I don't own this. It could be a mega-turd, don't buy it on my account.
  - jchw 8y ago
    No offense but your disclaimer kind of offers a reason why someone might buy their product.
    - vertexFarm 8y ago
      That's not how you should buy tools, though. Unless you're a professional who is making a living with these tools, you don't walk straight up to the Snap-On truck and drop several grand on all the highest quality stuff. You go to Hazard Fraught and get the cheap ones, then you replace the ones that actually wear out or don't cut the mustard with something a few tiers up. Most of it will work just fine for a decade at a twentieth of the price. The crowd here could probably build one of these out of whatever's in the junk drawer. Looks like it's the RX half of a cheap analogue walkie-talkie and some flashing lights. That's it. Two hundred bucks is egregious. Maybe if you were an actual LEO or a private eye, but for most people it makes absolutely no sense to buy the $200 version without first seeing if the $10 version does the job.
      - jchw 8y ago
        >That's not how you should buy tools, though. Well this is certainly subjective and dependent on multiple factors. It may very well be that you could get a similar device for $10-$20 or scrap one together for as much, but its probably not going to come with a good warranty or much reassurance of it's actual performance. And also, just as the crowd here is more likely to be able to build one, the crowd here is also more likely to be able to drop $200 on something if they want it. Use cases matter. Someone worried about voyeurs should think like voyeurs. They're driven by impulse and most of the time are probably not going to be super organized or resourceful. There's no need to waste your money on RF detectors or camera lens detectors if you are dealing with the kind of hidden surveillance equipment you'd see on Amazon; it's not that sneaky and you can just examine objects like clocks, smoke alarms, door hooks, and phone chargers for obvious cameras. These kind of surveillance devices are really only hidden to people who aren't looking for them. OTOH if it matters enough to want a camera lens or RF detector I'd definitely at least want a good piece of tool. Doesn't have to be the one in the article, but it'd certainly be worth considering. This is especially true in cases of potential corporate espionage and other situations of similar importance. Not at all saying there isn't a market for a cheaper device or a DIY replacement, but to be honest I think a lot of people are better off with buying nothing, if you ask me.
themodelplumber 8y ago
> Detects Camera Lens up to 45 feet This is interesting. Is that red filter-looking thing part of the mechanism for detecting lenses?
- vertexFarm 8y ago
  The LEDs on the front flash a certain wavelength of red light in an attention-grabbing manner and the filter blocks a lot of other light sources so the flashing red glint is easier to spot. It's pretty ingeniously simple. Of course it'll detect lots of other curved, reflective objects--the user has to verify it's a camera through manual inspection.
  - themodelplumber 8y ago
    > It's pretty ingeniously simple I'll say! That's really cool. Thanks for explaining how it works.
  - felipemnoa 8y ago
    I wonder if this still works if the camera is of the pin-hole type with no lens. i.e. camera obscura
    - nomel 8y ago
      These aren't looking for lenses as much as the reflection from the sensor. I imagine with a small enough aperture, things would be come difficult for you and the camera.
      - DoctorOetker 8y ago
        I have read before about a supposed fluorescence or perhaps reflection peak of the sensor itself, but I have never seen an actual scientific paper describing the setup, I suspect a simple filter and the naked eye would not suffice for this type of detection. The previous time I read a comment about such a system was by someone who worked (in-?)directly for a cinema, in order to detect people filming the movie. To detect the reflection from the sensor in the case of a real lensless pinhole camera you would have to be on the line perpendicular to the sensor through the hole, else the reflecting ray would not return through the pinhole. If someone knows more about the supposed systems that actually detect fluorescence or the antireflective coating spectrum of the light sensor itself please please reply!
gk1 8y ago
This is such a cynical statement that I'm tired of seeing on HN. Yes, the article mentions a product from the company, not in a sneaky way. The rest of it, some 2,800 words, is interesting and informative--to me, at least. An article can be both informative and self-serving, and there's nothing wrong with that, provided there's no deception. Most of what you read online is self-serving, in some way.
- aaron695 8y ago
  > An article can be both informative But this isn't. It's a lie. And it's not hard to tell. It's more a article for Reddit or Voat than HN. paradoxparalax offers actually interesting info above. The article - Divide a room into 4, wtf. Some rooms are 4 times larger than other, this makes no sense. Just the first line should tip you off the reader is a sucker - "This is without a doubt most thorough guide to detecting hidden cameras and covert spy gear that is online." This is just bad advice - "If this is your first time staying in a new hotel or an Airbnb, automatically assume that you are currently being recorded and surveilled." Every hotel room could be surveilled? Rubbish. See paradoxparalax for situations where it actually might be true. That's called adding info, compared to suckering a dumb reader into be paranoid, assumably to buy stuff.
- CyberDildonics 8y ago
  If you think this is cynical, you don't understand modern advertising.
  - solveit 8y ago
    The point isn't that the article isn't an advertisement, it's that it isn't just an advertisement. If it provides value we shouldn't immediately dismiss it just for being an ad.
- ouid 8y ago
  >provided there's no deception. First of all, your caveat does not hold. This article is deceptive in full. None of the advice presented here is good at all... "divide the room into quadrants and search each quadrant"? Why? Just search the entire room. The article fundamentally gives the impression that you will not actually be able to locate any spygear unless you have an RF detector and a camera beacon simply by not giving any good advice otherwise. "Check if the outlet covers have been changed?" right, because when I bug a house that I own, I also buy a new outlet cover. No one trying to sell you something is going to tell you how you could effectively live your life without their product. This is fundamentally deceptive, and seems to have gone so far as to have fooled even you.
nkrisc 8y ago
For "just an advertisement" it sure offers a lot of good advice that is still applicable even if you don't buy anything from them.

by ouid 8y ago

this article is actually just an advertisement for this product. https://www.senteltechsecurity.com/lawmate-dd802-defender.html https://www.senteltechsecurity.com/lawmate-dd802-defender.ht...

aboutruby 8y ago

Any alternative you would recommend then?

vertexFarm 8y ago
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Anti-Spy-Hidden-Camera-Lens-Bug-Detector-GSM-GPS-Signal-Finder-RF-Tracker-Audio/302808197942?epid=4008810412&hash=item4680c66b36:g:ubMAAOSwUMxaAAfo:rk:1:pf:0 https://www.ebay.com/itm/Anti-Spy-Hidden-Camera-Lens-Bug-Det... Probably way crappier, but for what these electronics entail the one sold by the website in the post is vastly overpriced. It's a very simple radio, a battery, some LEDs, and an optical filter of some kind. Likely just a red gel. Plus, how great of a bug detector do most people really need? The main features are all there and it's probably workable in most cases. Disclaimer, I don't own this. It could be a mega-turd, don't buy it on my account.
- jchw 8y ago
  No offense but your disclaimer kind of offers a reason why someone might buy their product.
  - vertexFarm 8y ago
    That's not how you should buy tools, though. Unless you're a professional who is making a living with these tools, you don't walk straight up to the Snap-On truck and drop several grand on all the highest quality stuff. You go to Hazard Fraught and get the cheap ones, then you replace the ones that actually wear out or don't cut the mustard with something a few tiers up. Most of it will work just fine for a decade at a twentieth of the price. The crowd here could probably build one of these out of whatever's in the junk drawer. Looks like it's the RX half of a cheap analogue walkie-talkie and some flashing lights. That's it. Two hundred bucks is egregious. Maybe if you were an actual LEO or a private eye, but for most people it makes absolutely no sense to buy the $200 version without first seeing if the $10 version does the job.
    - jchw 8y ago
      >That's not how you should buy tools, though. Well this is certainly subjective and dependent on multiple factors. It may very well be that you could get a similar device for $10-$20 or scrap one together for as much, but its probably not going to come with a good warranty or much reassurance of it's actual performance. And also, just as the crowd here is more likely to be able to build one, the crowd here is also more likely to be able to drop $200 on something if they want it. Use cases matter. Someone worried about voyeurs should think like voyeurs. They're driven by impulse and most of the time are probably not going to be super organized or resourceful. There's no need to waste your money on RF detectors or camera lens detectors if you are dealing with the kind of hidden surveillance equipment you'd see on Amazon; it's not that sneaky and you can just examine objects like clocks, smoke alarms, door hooks, and phone chargers for obvious cameras. These kind of surveillance devices are really only hidden to people who aren't looking for them. OTOH if it matters enough to want a camera lens or RF detector I'd definitely at least want a good piece of tool. Doesn't have to be the one in the article, but it'd certainly be worth considering. This is especially true in cases of potential corporate espionage and other situations of similar importance. Not at all saying there isn't a market for a cheaper device or a DIY replacement, but to be honest I think a lot of people are better off with buying nothing, if you ask me.

themodelplumber 8y ago

> Detects Camera Lens up to 45 feet This is interesting. Is that red filter-looking thing part of the mechanism for detecting lenses?

vertexFarm 8y ago
The LEDs on the front flash a certain wavelength of red light in an attention-grabbing manner and the filter blocks a lot of other light sources so the flashing red glint is easier to spot. It's pretty ingeniously simple. Of course it'll detect lots of other curved, reflective objects--the user has to verify it's a camera through manual inspection.
- themodelplumber 8y ago
  > It's pretty ingeniously simple I'll say! That's really cool. Thanks for explaining how it works.
- felipemnoa 8y ago
  I wonder if this still works if the camera is of the pin-hole type with no lens. i.e. camera obscura
  - nomel 8y ago
    These aren't looking for lenses as much as the reflection from the sensor. I imagine with a small enough aperture, things would be come difficult for you and the camera.
    - DoctorOetker 8y ago
      I have read before about a supposed fluorescence or perhaps reflection peak of the sensor itself, but I have never seen an actual scientific paper describing the setup, I suspect a simple filter and the naked eye would not suffice for this type of detection. The previous time I read a comment about such a system was by someone who worked (in-?)directly for a cinema, in order to detect people filming the movie. To detect the reflection from the sensor in the case of a real lensless pinhole camera you would have to be on the line perpendicular to the sensor through the hole, else the reflecting ray would not return through the pinhole. If someone knows more about the supposed systems that actually detect fluorescence or the antireflective coating spectrum of the light sensor itself please please reply!

gk1 8y ago

This is such a cynical statement that I'm tired of seeing on HN. Yes, the article mentions a product from the company, not in a sneaky way. The rest of it, some 2,800 words, is interesting and informative--to me, at least. An article can be both informative and self-serving, and there's nothing wrong with that, provided there's no deception. Most of what you read online is self-serving, in some way.

aaron695 8y ago
> An article can be both informative But this isn't. It's a lie. And it's not hard to tell. It's more a article for Reddit or Voat than HN. paradoxparalax offers actually interesting info above. The article - Divide a room into 4, wtf. Some rooms are 4 times larger than other, this makes no sense. Just the first line should tip you off the reader is a sucker - "This is without a doubt most thorough guide to detecting hidden cameras and covert spy gear that is online." This is just bad advice - "If this is your first time staying in a new hotel or an Airbnb, automatically assume that you are currently being recorded and surveilled." Every hotel room could be surveilled? Rubbish. See paradoxparalax for situations where it actually might be true. That's called adding info, compared to suckering a dumb reader into be paranoid, assumably to buy stuff.
CyberDildonics 8y ago
If you think this is cynical, you don't understand modern advertising.
- solveit 8y ago
  The point isn't that the article isn't an advertisement, it's that it isn't just an advertisement. If it provides value we shouldn't immediately dismiss it just for being an ad.
ouid 8y ago
>provided there's no deception. First of all, your caveat does not hold. This article is deceptive in full. None of the advice presented here is good at all... "divide the room into quadrants and search each quadrant"? Why? Just search the entire room. The article fundamentally gives the impression that you will not actually be able to locate any spygear unless you have an RF detector and a camera beacon simply by not giving any good advice otherwise. "Check if the outlet covers have been changed?" right, because when I bug a house that I own, I also buy a new outlet cover. No one trying to sell you something is going to tell you how you could effectively live your life without their product. This is fundamentally deceptive, and seems to have gone so far as to have fooled even you.

nkrisc 8y ago

For "just an advertisement" it sure offers a lot of good advice that is still applicable even if you don't buy anything from them.