A $200 privacy device has been killed, and no one knows why

[Recursion]

http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/07/a-200-privacy-device-has-been-killed-and-no-one-knows-why/

A security researcher has abruptly cancelled next month's scheduled unveiling of a privacy device designed to mask Internet users' physical locations. It's a move that has both disappointed privacy advocates and aroused suspicions.

Ben Caudill, a researcher with Rhino Security Labs, took the unusual step of saying he no longer plans to release the software or hardware schematics for his so-called ProxyHam box. He said the devices already created have been destroyed. Caudill has offered no explanation for the killing of the project, but he has reportedly ruled out both intellectual property disputes and Federal Communications Commission licensing concerns.

...

The ProxyHam device was able to mask the location of an Internet user by broadcasting on a 900MHz radio frequency so the owner could connect from up to 2.5 miles away from the source of the Internet connection. As a result, even if someone tracked down the location of an IP address, the user wouldn't automatically be discovered. The box was billed as using open-source software and requiring less than $200 in hardware. It was scheduled to be the topic of a now-canceled talk at next month's Defcon hacker conference in Las Vegas.

Other speculation on why the project was cancelled holds that ProxyHam was never the break-through device some journalists and privacy advocates made it out to be. ProxyHam, according to Errata Security CEO Rob Graham, was little more than the combination of a Raspberry Pi computer and a $125 900 MHz bridge from a company called Ubiquiti Networks, with some software that made them interoperate.

Interesting. My own bet is "he couldn't get it to work like he wanted".

[HassleCat]

1. Could be the computer

My sources tell me the Raspberry Pi is very noisy when used in radio projects. They say it requires much filtering and shielding, along with some trial and error, to eliminate the radio frequency noise from the computer.

[tkmorris]

2. The Feds killed it

Caudill's carefully phrased responses to questions would make that rather obvious I should think.

[Recursion]

3. That makes me think vaporware (nt)

[tkmorris]

5. I see what you're saying

Caudill is clearly acting as is he was told to squash the project, and told he can't discuss why. In short he is acting as if the Feds ordered him to kill it. Could it all be an act to cover the fact that the thing just never worked properly? Sure, but I don't think so. There's no REASON it shouldn't have worked; it's a fairly straightforward concept.

[Man from Pickens]

7. yep, couldn't legally have given more hints that he got a National Security Letter

regarding which the First Amendment has been suspended by our Fascist police state

[hobbit709]

18. My first thought too.

[closeupready]

8. +1. Of course.

[jberryhill]

4. I don't get what was so unusual about it

http://www.countrymilewifi.com/

[NJCher]

6. interesting

will have to study that over.


Cher

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Ain't gonna get very far on a legal 900 MHz signal

Unless it's in an open field and/or it's using a highly-directional antenna, which needs to be repositioned whenever sender or receiver moves. In an urban environment, 100 ft if you're lucky.

[Recursion]

10. That's, what, a foot wavelength, give or take?

Good point; that's pretty much the exact wrong wavelength to go through a normal reinforced masonry wall...

[jberryhill]

11. Maximum 1 Watt for unlicensed 900 MHz

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Yikes, I didn't realize it was that high!

10x compared to 2.4GHz, IIRC. Just don't try it with small batteries, they won't last long.

[jberryhill]

17. I still don't see the big deal

At 900 MHz and with a directional antenna, you can get a wifi signal several thousand feet. What was supposed to be so wonderfully innovative about that idea?

3000 feet, 30 bucks, Wal-Mart: http://www.walmart.com/ip/Ideaworks-Long-Distance-WiFi-Antenna/23988747?sourceid=1500000000000003142050

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Turns out it's a little complex...

Path loss (due to aor) is much greater for higher frequencies, e.g. 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz, and there are other issues. All told, 900 Mhz tends to be sturdier indoors or out vs higher frequencies. Much lower bandwidth allocation though, IIRC.

[davidpdx]

15. Indeed it is complex

I don't think I could understand it if you explained it slowly.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

16. Perhaps the NSA made him an offer he couldn't refuse. nt