Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [videoblogging] Hacking public video screens

Expand Messages
  • David Jones
    ... I tweeted the other day that this is clearly a hoax. I thought it was a viral marketing campaign for Apple, but I ve heard it may be a viral ad for some
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 15, 2011
      On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...> wrote:
      >
      > This video has been going around lately:
      > http://www.alexandrosmaragos.com/2011/03/hacker-in-times-square.html
      > I remember at Vloggercon 05, we discussed wanting to take over public
      > video screens, gorrilla style. This guy has done it.
      >
      > There's no sound, but looks very easy. These screens can be found in
      > many major urban areas and used for advertising.
      >
      > Jay

      I tweeted the other day that this is clearly a hoax.
      I thought it was a viral marketing campaign for Apple, but I've heard
      it may be a viral ad for some video editing software or something.

      Dave.
    • Jay dedman
      ... I guess I took it at face value. What made it so obviously a hoax? Just curious if something like that would even be possible. Jay -- 917 371 6790 540 860
      Message 2 of 7 , Mar 15, 2011
        > I tweeted the other day that this is clearly a hoax.
        > I thought it was a viral marketing campaign for Apple, but I've heard
        > it may be a viral ad for some video editing software or something.

        I guess I took it at face value. What made it so obviously a hoax?
        Just curious if something like that would even be possible.

        Jay


        --
        917 371 6790
        540 860 0673
      • David Jones
        ... It helps that I m an electronics design engineer, but I noticed several things immediately: 1) The circuitry on the board for the video repeater on top of
        Message 3 of 7 , Mar 15, 2011
          On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...> wrote:
          >
          > > I tweeted the other day that this is clearly a hoax.
          > > I thought it was a viral marketing campaign for Apple, but I've heard
          > > it may be a viral ad for some video editing software or something.
          >
          > I guess I took it at face value. What made it so obviously a hoax?

          It helps that I'm an electronics design engineer, but I noticed
          several things immediately:

          1) The circuitry on the board for the video repeater on top of the
          iPhone just didn't look right. Also where was the power supply for it?
          I didn't see a battery, and you can't realistically tap the power out
          of the iPhone headphone jack.

          2) The video hacked onto the screen was just far too seamless, and the
          video "glitches" were too contrived and what I'd expect a post edit
          effect to look like. And it didn't make sense that it would work in
          the middle of the screen and not down the bottom when he dropped his
          hand, you simply don't get that kind of discrimination in practice
          with RF signals. Not to mention the aspect ratios etc

          3) The video was clearly shot with a pro camera and the angles were
          good, and it was clear a lot of thought had gone into it. Some hacker
          on the street showing off his work without getting busted wouldn't go
          to that much trouble.

          4) The acting was too polished and just didn't feel right, with the
          "good" part at the end bit of the first clip too contrived for my
          liking. Few hackers would act like that on camera, esp when they might
          be doing something possibly illegal in a public place.

          5) The Youtube channel is brand new with this being the first video.
          Fine if you wanted to hide your identity, but then why reveal yourself
          so clearly on camera and then not say who you are in the video notes
          to get credit for your work?

          > Just curious if something like that would even be possible.

          If the video screen used a simple analog modulated RF transmitter to
          receive the signals from some nearby source, like those cheap wireless
          TV video transmitter for your house, then maybe.
          But otherwise no.

          Dave.
        • Joly MacFie
          Here we go: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/business/media/17viral.html ... -- ... Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC -
          Message 4 of 7 , Mar 17, 2011
            Here we go:

            http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/business/media/17viral.html

            On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 7:54 PM, David Jones <david.jones@...> wrote:

            > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > > I tweeted the other day that this is clearly a hoax.
            > > > I thought it was a viral marketing campaign for Apple, but I've heard
            > > > it may be a viral ad for some video editing software or something.
            > >
            > > I guess I took it at face value. What made it so obviously a hoax?
            >
            > It helps that I'm an electronics design engineer, but I noticed
            > several things immediately:
            >
            > 1) The circuitry on the board for the video repeater on top of the
            > iPhone just didn't look right. Also where was the power supply for it?
            > I didn't see a battery, and you can't realistically tap the power out
            > of the iPhone headphone jack.
            >
            > 2) The video hacked onto the screen was just far too seamless, and the
            > video "glitches" were too contrived and what I'd expect a post edit
            > effect to look like. And it didn't make sense that it would work in
            > the middle of the screen and not down the bottom when he dropped his
            > hand, you simply don't get that kind of discrimination in practice
            > with RF signals. Not to mention the aspect ratios etc
            >
            > 3) The video was clearly shot with a pro camera and the angles were
            > good, and it was clear a lot of thought had gone into it. Some hacker
            > on the street showing off his work without getting busted wouldn't go
            > to that much trouble.
            >
            > 4) The acting was too polished and just didn't feel right, with the
            > "good" part at the end bit of the first clip too contrived for my
            > liking. Few hackers would act like that on camera, esp when they might
            > be doing something possibly illegal in a public place.
            >
            > 5) The Youtube channel is brand new with this being the first video.
            > Fine if you wanted to hide your identity, but then why reveal yourself
            > so clearly on camera and then not say who you are in the video notes
            > to get credit for your work?
            >
            > > Just curious if something like that would even be possible.
            >
            > If the video screen used a simple analog modulated RF transmitter to
            > receive the signals from some nearby source, like those cheap wireless
            > TV video transmitter for your house, then maybe.
            > But otherwise no.
            >
            > Dave.
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >


            --
            ---------------------------------------------------------------
            Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
            WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
            http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
            VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
            --------------------------------------------------------------
            -


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.