alfanhendro
asked on
Detect hidden camera
I've heard that we can detect a hidden camera using handphone. If once we get in a room, suddenly the phone does not receive signal, it means that there is a wireless device in the room. Is that true? If not, is there any way/technique to detect wireless camera without using those expensive devices sold in the internet?
I'm not paranoid - they really ARE out to get me!
That may work for a camera that happens to work on the same frequency as your wireless phone.
Most do not, so it is NOT a good way to check.
You need good equipment to do this kind of detection and it is NOT foolproof since equipment is constantly changing.
I hope this helps !
Most do not, so it is NOT a good way to check.
You need good equipment to do this kind of detection and it is NOT foolproof since equipment is constantly changing.
I hope this helps !
And if the camera is hard wired and not wireless then no detection equipment is going to find it unless it is an Xray machine. If you get some kind of detection device that detect all electronic devices then it will go crazy in almost all rooms because of all the electronic devices in the room.
If you think you are being spied upon then assume you are and act accordingly.
If you think you are being spied upon then assume you are and act accordingly.
Big Brother wathes YOU!!! Rememeber It newer sleeps...
ASKER
i am not being spied, just feeling not secure for my friends.
few cases happen in my town here that hidden cameras are found in public places like toilet, fitting rooms.
none of them are with concern of the management of the places. so, very likely that it will be wireless device.
few cases happen in my town here that hidden cameras are found in public places like toilet, fitting rooms.
none of them are with concern of the management of the places. so, very likely that it will be wireless device.
Seriously, though, the popular X-10 wireless cameras use the same 2.4GHz frequency as 2.4GHz cordless phones and also the 802.11b wireless network cards.
To detect them, however, you need a "sniffer" that can help you locate hidden (as well as non-hidden) transmitting devices. Such devices are like:
http://www.spyworld.com/2003.htm
To detect them, however, you need a "sniffer" that can help you locate hidden (as well as non-hidden) transmitting devices. Such devices are like:
http://www.spyworld.com/2003.htm
I have X-10 cameras, Wireless 2.4G keyboards, 802.11b wireless network, 2.4G phones and 2.4G video/audio extenders all working in harmony together. Took alot of trial and error work and dividing up the frequency bands in an intelligent manner. I wonder when I'll start glowing in the dark. :) lol
By the way, I am Big Brother :) hahahaha
ASKER
it seems that i will never really get the answer for my question. anyway, just keep the question open for some more time. i'll give the point to one that give me most information.
and thanks to everybody.
and thanks to everybody.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
jhance, very sorry that your answer is not exactly what i want.
"If not, is there any way/technique to detect wireless camera without using those expensive devices sold
in the internet? "
the cheapest bug-detector i've found so far cost US$128. for 10 pieces of that equipment, it is going to cost me more than 1000 dollars (remember i said that it is for my friends?). and for my place here, 1280 dollars is a lot of money(3 months of my salary).
anyway, i appreciate your effort, and i understand that you only wants to help. sorry again, and thank you.
"If not, is there any way/technique to detect wireless camera without using those expensive devices sold
in the internet? "
the cheapest bug-detector i've found so far cost US$128. for 10 pieces of that equipment, it is going to cost me more than 1000 dollars (remember i said that it is for my friends?). and for my place here, 1280 dollars is a lot of money(3 months of my salary).
anyway, i appreciate your effort, and i understand that you only wants to help. sorry again, and thank you.
"If not, is there any way/technique to detect wireless camera without using those expensive devices sold in the internet? "
That was answered also, and the answer is "no" there is no way to detect the signals from hidden devices without the aid of the "expensive" hardware.
That was answered also, and the answer is "no" there is no way to detect the signals from hidden devices without the aid of the "expensive" hardware.
Not all problems have simple or inexpensive solutions.
In this case, you have an UNKNOWN hidden device you are trying to detect, you need a sophisticated (relatively) detection device.
If you don't have the funds to purchase a detector, build one yourself.
Just because you don't like the solutions to your problem doesn't relieve you of closing this question.
In this case, you have an UNKNOWN hidden device you are trying to detect, you need a sophisticated (relatively) detection device.
If you don't have the funds to purchase a detector, build one yourself.
Just because you don't like the solutions to your problem doesn't relieve you of closing this question.
Any technique other than specifically designed hardware will get you many false positives and false negatives.
ie: using a 2.4ghz phone will detect other phones, keyboards and just plain old interferance. likewise if your 2.4ghz phone might not be set to the same band as any camera that might be transmitting. (I have many 2.4ghz devices that do not interfere.)
If someone (like the governments) that have alot of money will not be using 2.4ghz devices. They have equipment that is quite different and superior to anything available to the common people. They don't even have to place a device in your home to spy on you.
If you want to protect from commercially available equipment you can do this by using shielding and physical blocking. All you would need is some metal and wood.
Civilian devices are quite easy to defeat.
So maybe you should be looking into defeating the device instead of detecting. It's much cheaper. However, if you want to protect yourself from the superior spy stuff that is out there, then you will have to spend some bucks.
ie: using a 2.4ghz phone will detect other phones, keyboards and just plain old interferance. likewise if your 2.4ghz phone might not be set to the same band as any camera that might be transmitting. (I have many 2.4ghz devices that do not interfere.)
If someone (like the governments) that have alot of money will not be using 2.4ghz devices. They have equipment that is quite different and superior to anything available to the common people. They don't even have to place a device in your home to spy on you.
If you want to protect from commercially available equipment you can do this by using shielding and physical blocking. All you would need is some metal and wood.
Civilian devices are quite easy to defeat.
So maybe you should be looking into defeating the device instead of detecting. It's much cheaper. However, if you want to protect yourself from the superior spy stuff that is out there, then you will have to spend some bucks.
alfanhendro has asked for Community Support guidance in this question because the goal has not yet been achieved. What I stated is that the question may remain open so long as alfanhendro remains active in it and provides ongoing feedback to the expert who are helping. If a question is inactive for more than 21 days, it is considered "abandoned" and handled accordingly.
This is just to reconfirm that.
Moondancer - EE Moderator
This is just to reconfirm that.
Moondancer - EE Moderator
Moondancer
His questions has been answered
". If once we get in a room, suddenly the phone does not receive signal, it means that there is a wireless device in the room. Is that true?"
Answer is NO, not true at all
"If not, is there any way/technique to detect wireless camera without using those expensive devices sold in the internet?"
Answer is NO, you will need a detector that is very expensive
I guess the questioner is not happy with the answer but the questions were answered completely and accurately, what more would you suggest we do? take up a collection for him so he can afford better equipment?
His questions has been answered
". If once we get in a room, suddenly the phone does not receive signal, it means that there is a wireless device in the room. Is that true?"
Answer is NO, not true at all
"If not, is there any way/technique to detect wireless camera without using those expensive devices sold in the internet?"
Answer is NO, you will need a detector that is very expensive
I guess the questioner is not happy with the answer but the questions were answered completely and accurately, what more would you suggest we do? take up a collection for him so he can afford better equipment?
This guy's question has been ANSWERED! He just doesn't like it that there is no FREE way to detect hidden transmitters. Unfortunately, not all problems have free solutions.
The answer is NO, you cannot detect a hidden transmitter with a handphone.
And I pointed to a SPECIFIC product that can be purchased that meets the need here.
What more could be desired?
The answer is NO, you cannot detect a hidden transmitter with a handphone.
And I pointed to a SPECIFIC product that can be purchased that meets the need here.
What more could be desired?
ASKER
ok, guys...
i admit that you have given me the correct answer. you can see from the question i posted in community support also.
https://www.experts-exchange.com/jsp/qManageQuestion.jsp?qid=20307504
and like you said, yes, i just don't like it. but, it doesn't mean that i don't want to close the question. just give some more time for other input. (like what highstar1 do by the last comment).
at least i don't abandon the question.
and about points, you are sure to get yours.
anyway, considering this, if you still want me to close this question now, i'll do just as requested.
regards
i admit that you have given me the correct answer. you can see from the question i posted in community support also.
https://www.experts-exchange.com/jsp/qManageQuestion.jsp?qid=20307504
and like you said, yes, i just don't like it. but, it doesn't mean that i don't want to close the question. just give some more time for other input. (like what highstar1 do by the last comment).
at least i don't abandon the question.
and about points, you are sure to get yours.
anyway, considering this, if you still want me to close this question now, i'll do just as requested.
regards
ASKER
ok, guys...
i admit that you have given me the correct answer. you can see from the question i posted in community support also.
https://www.experts-exchange.com/jsp/qManageQuestion.jsp?qid=20307504
and like you said, yes, i just don't like it. but, it doesn't mean that i don't want to close the question. just give some more time for other input. (like what highstar1 do by the last comment).
at least i don't abandon the question.
and about points, you are sure to get yours.
anyway, considering this, if you still want me to close this question now, i'll do just as requested.
regards
i admit that you have given me the correct answer. you can see from the question i posted in community support also.
https://www.experts-exchange.com/jsp/qManageQuestion.jsp?qid=20307504
and like you said, yes, i just don't like it. but, it doesn't mean that i don't want to close the question. just give some more time for other input. (like what highstar1 do by the last comment).
at least i don't abandon the question.
and about points, you are sure to get yours.
anyway, considering this, if you still want me to close this question now, i'll do just as requested.
regards
alfanhendro -> This is not my area of expertise, and I therefore requested Expert input on the recommended outcome here, and clearly consensus states the question has been answered in full and at "A" level response. Given that, closing it is the right decision.
If you need my help, let me know.
Thanks to all,
Moondancer - EE Moderator
If you need my help, let me know.
Thanks to all,
Moondancer - EE Moderator
ASKER
alright then.
thank's for everybody.
thank's for everybody.