Airbnb host thrown in the clink after guest finds hidden camera inside Wi-Fi router An Airbnb "superhost" has been arrested and jailed after a guest discovered a camera hidden inside an internet router placed in the bedroom. The perv had picked on the wrong woman. Yunfei (her online alias) works in IT security and always checks hotel rooms that she stays in. She became immediately suspicious when she arrived …
To be fair to AirBnB I don't think they can be held responsible for people doing this. What they are responsible for however is acting on reports of nefarious activities such as this and cutting those hosts off their service immediately. There's no reason at all for them to not act swiftly and appropriately.
Probably because there's no way they can really know. In this example - even if AirBnB held regular inspections of every room, the guy puts in an unmodified router for the inspection, then replaces it with the dodgy one when they leave. Maybe he only uses the dodgy router when he has a woman of a certain demographic staying there, so he doesn't have it in there for most of the month and so it's missed even during surprise visits. How are they responsible for that action?
"Probably because there's no way they can really know. In this example"
The whole problem with their business model is that they're taking money for something for which they should take responsibility which they find difficult to do. Their response to the Irish incident suggests they expected to get away with doing nothing.
It's their problem and we should hold them responsible for solving it. If they can't or won't then their entire business deserves to go down the tubes for being built on an unsustainable model.
No, it's the market's responsibility to know what they are purchasing. Another AirBnB rival could start up with minimal overhead, and advertise "We check the properties for hidden cameras!", and if the market cared to pay for the extra service, then the rival would win more share. (In fact the "rivals" already exist in the form of hotels, lodges, etc. Not that they search for hidden cameras either....)
The whole problem with their business model is that they're taking money for something for which they should take responsibility which they find difficult to do.
Also true of Uber, Lyft, Bird, Lime, and many other "disruptors."
Even Google use it, and I make this point every time they or Facebook argue that they cant stop illegal things being posted on their platforms because it would require too many resources
It seems the theory is if you cant do something properly, just do it on such a scale you can blame it on that scale...
The whole problem with their business model is that they're taking money for something for which they should take responsibility which they find difficult to do.
The way I see it all they are responsible for is putting me in contact with someone willing to rent me a room, much like the local Gazzette might put me in touch with someone selling a car - they are not responsible for the condition or legal status of the car.
Their response to the Irish incident suggests they expected to get away with doing nothing.
Indeed that was bad. when reports like that come in , thats when they become responsible - or complicit in the crime.
So should travel agents be held responsible as well? Should they check every room that they rent out?
Imagine what that would do to the price of holidays. Would you be happy to pay the extra cost?
Just saying
Cheers... Ishy
> even if AirBnB held regular inspections of every room, the guy puts in an unmodified router for the inspection, then replaces it with the dodgy one when they leave
That's why you have unannounced randomly timed inspections, even with the inspector making a reservation and staying as a paid guest.
> The cost of carrying out inspections or surprise visits on every BnB place would be completely prohibitive. There are millions of listings
That's not how inspections work, for anything. You inspect a small percentage, at random. Those who are cheating will have no way of knowing if or when an inspector will show up and catch them. The penalties just need to be harsh enough to discourage playing the odds.
AirBNB can be just as accountable as any other hotel entity.
If you have a member of staff in a hotel swapping out clock radios with cam versions. You'd hold the Hotel accountable for the actions of their employed staff, even if it were 3rd party agency staff from a cleaning company. You wouldn't just shrug and say " there's no way [we] can really know" what our staff do...
AirBNB have ultimate responsibility for the service to the customer. They are the service provider to that customer, and the property owner provides the service to AirBNB..
It is clearly up to AirBNB to enforce the quality of the product they purchase and resell.
Simple mystery shopping inspections by "woman of a certain demographic" would detect this.
No. We are not on Airbnb but on Booking.com which should be similar enough for this purpose.
The contract is between guest and host.
The listing site or agent is responsible for making a reasonable effort to ensure the host is legal, e.g. by checking against public registers.
"
If you have a member of staff in a hotel swapping out clock radios with cam versions. You'd hold the Hotel accountable for the actions of their employed staff
"
Fine ... but what if it was a previous guest who had planted the bug? Is the hotel still responsible? Do hotels have a duty to perform a complete bug-sweep before a new guest takes a room?
This is not that difficult. A host should be required to post a bond that is subject to forfeiture if terms are violated. Terms prohibit covert video surveillance of guests.
No, it's not foolproof, and there is a cost, but they compete with hotels that have responsibilities and liabilities with associated costs. AirBnB doesn't want to compete at that level and their business model depends on customers not appreciating the difference.
Quite. This "sharing economy" lark is simply a mechanism to get around the costs that real-world businesses have to incur to meet the reasonable expectations of real-world consumers. This twilight world of nebulous intermediaries who claim to have very little legal responsibility for the services they merely appear to provide needs to be stamped out.
No, it doesn't need to be stamped out. It just needs to be priced accordingly - which airbnb often is. I took a place in Manchester a few months ago : a typical student house with a tiny bedroom and a kitchen sink full of washing up. Totally unacceptable by hotel standards but perfect for my needs and priced to match.
If I get what I pay for , I don't care if someone doesn't clean the bathroom or takes pictures of me (actually, I feel sorry for them. they must be pretty desperate and if it cheers them up to watch a middle-aged unhealthy man go to bed on his own, good luck to them).
Caveat emptor, or course. But it's my choice, not the choice of public authorities and hotel owners.
'I don't care if someone doesn't clean the bathroom or takes pictures of me'
You might not care if they take pictures (or video) of you but I'm sure plenty of people, especially women will feel completely violated, especially as they are paying that person to stay in their house.. These pictures or video footage could end up on the internet for other like-minded pathetic perves to ogle over and post disgusting comments. No business providing accommodation should let people stay in houses with this sort of risk.
"
You might not care if they take pictures (or video) of you but I'm sure plenty of people, especially women will feel completely violated
"
In which case they should either take their own steps to inspect the property or use more expensive options.
Yes we could dispense with a lot of law that way actually couldn't we? In fact you might be kn to something, let's replace law with your free market based approach
Dont want to get attacked walking home from a night out? Take your own steps to protect yourself. Learn martial arts and take a weapon!
Thst way if a street is dangerous then the market will react accordingly and people will make a choice to use the other, not deadly street. Then the deadly street will have to improve to win walkers back.
Its beautifully simple, can't believe nobody already thought of it
You might not care if they take pictures
Well - when you consider that it's illegal (especially now the upskirting laws have come in in the UK[1]) it's not a matter of your personal preference but law..
[1] And I'm sure that most jurisdictions have some sort of invasion of privacy laws.
“If I get what I pay for , I don't care if someone doesn't clean the bathroom or takes pictures of me”
Ah that’s ok then. I’ll be sure to let all the people who *do* mind know that it’s ok because you don’t mind.
I agree with sabroni; why not? This is an argument I run into continuously, which is extremely convenient for "services", but issues of "customers" (the ones paying the bill) only get resolved by the grace of said services it seems. Kind of fed up about that.
And let's be honest, that is one of the grips of the ongoing digitalisation of a lot of stuff of course. Since in this case for example, Airbnb offers something, makes money with it, but never has "feet on the ground" but does it from somewhere on the other side of the world, you have no person to communicate with really. Think about it: hotel with "noisy neighbour? Go to Reception, talk to somebody, they are on it, or maybe you get a new room. Noisy Airbnb neighbour? "Could you put it in an email please?" And the money is always already gone and the customer has to jump through hoops to get it back (if ever). And that, together with the more and more expanding MITM principle of services, this will get only worse...
Not so nice news on a, let's say for example, FaceBook news wire? Sorry, we are just a service...
Rubbish article on Ebay/ Amazon? Sorry, please refer to the "original" vendor.
Or even...
Person: I'd like to report this crime... Police: Ah, OK, can you please fill out our online form?
Person: I'd like to complain about this/ that issue? Bank: Ah, can you send our complain to support@yourbank.com? We will send you an automated email with a ticket number and get back to you (when we feel like it)!
</old git dipping feather in ink>
Bit like the car that I see actively used every day with no MOT. Reported it to council, told to report to police. Reported to them, told to call their 101 number. I've done that before and been on hold for over an hour.
The ticket on their site they allow you to also report said lack of MOT still hasn't been actioned and the car is still actively being driven. DVLA also aren't interested!
It's had no MOT for 6 months, could that be because the last but one failed and they know it will fail again and don't want to pay up? When that crashes and burns will the police be responsible for not acting on the tip off?
Maybe over the top but yeah, this automated shit is somewhat annoying. What's the point of a £1k fine when you're not going to action it on a car that's had no MOT for 6 months.
It really pisses off the sales droid when I check the tread depth on all the tyres (including the spare), the lights, water, oil, wipers, bodywork and mirrors before accepting the hire car - I check the brakes in their car park before taking the car onto the road (because they never give you the keys before you sign the contract!)
I point out that it is me that is going to get the 3 points and up to £2,500 fine if the car is not roadworthy.
It's amazing how "American style customer care" (their advertising slogan) suddenly becomes "Anglo Saxon swearing" when the droid is waiting for me in the rain :-)
Wow, almost like the "droid" is an actual living, breathing person who is cold wet and irritated. There's nothing particularly wrong with wanting to check your car over, but it sounds like you're also making some poor sod on minimum wage miserable and letting it make you feel like you're sticking it to the man
Wow, almost like the "droid" is an actual living, breathing person who is cold wet and irritated.
Well.. If there's a fault with the car that causes me to crash into his office when I am returning it, he may not be a "living, breathing person" any more. Better I give an unknown car a good check over before I drive it.
I'll happily drive a car that pulls to the left under heavy braking if I know it, because I can do a few parking-lot runs and automatically compensate for it. If I have time I may even be able to fix it for them, for a discount.
Bit like the car that I see actively used every day with no MOT.
Since there are no indicators of tax nor MOT on any cars these days (and never were for MOT), I assume you have sen this car, and then put its number plate in to the online check, just to see what other people are up to.
I think you might be my neighbour.
why the thumb down? I'n genuinely curious about the portfolio of methods of "reporting stuff to the cops"
Especially methods that cant handle the transfer of a 7 digit numberplate to a part of the force that can deal with it.
Was it a message in a bottle? well , no it cant be because there was a reply (ring 101) the mind truly boggles how this initial report was made.
was it by email perhaps? if so whats the point of even having that channel if the simplest message on earth is met with "ring 101"
"Bit like the car that I see actively used every day with no MOT. "
The DVLA have all the data they need as to whether a given vehicle has had an MOT and hasn't got a SORN (assuming it's not using false number plates) so this points to probable under-funding of whoever is responsible for enforcement of the law regarding MOTs.
It's had no MOT for 6 months, could that be because the last but one failed and they know it will fail again and don't want to pay up? When that crashes and burns will the police be responsible for not acting on the tip off?
Crazy idea I know but..... What would happen if you were to politely talk to the person and offer to help them get it resolved if there's some decent reason they can't do it for themselves?
Most safety things on cars aren't that hard to resolve. Car wreckers sell decent 2nd hand tyres (at least round these parts) that might only last a season but only cost a tenner instead of a month's grub, electrical faults generally are simple to locate and fix (though some can be a prick).
Never know, you might get a good enduring friendship out of it. Or you might prevent a situation where you're the innocent victim in the crash dealing with life-changing injuries.
(Not every one is worth talking to, and not everyone can manage to talk in the right manner, use your own judgement)
There's half a chance that the number plate is false. Makes tracking down the driver quite hard.
There is reason to be dissatisfied with flagrant breaches of things like motoring laws that get ignored by the cops. For example there's a trend these days for not displaying a front number plate here in the UK. It's a £1000 fine, yet I've heard of people who do this who have been in accidents where the police attended, but they couldn't care less. Too much paper work.
Of course they cannot be held responsible for people doing things like this.
They can, however, be held responsible for their own actions (or lack thereof).
So, apparently, the official corporate response in cases like this is:
First report: "Sorry, there's nothing we can do."
When it hits Social Media: "Our initial response did not meet our high corporate standards.", and bounce the listing.
Repeat the next time it happens...while continuing to collect as much money as possible in the meantime
Devils advocate on the point of reacting quickly to reports:
This sort of reaction can have the unintended consequence of opening a DoS opportunity for rivals. Amazon for example (another basically unregulated free for all, subject only to the rules of the marketplace itself which a monster private commercial entity) is awash with tales of sellers being shut down through vindictive false reports made by competitors.
That's why they cant kick people off based on merely reports. Criminal prosecutions of course are another matter!
To be fair to AirBnB I don't think they can be held responsible for people doing this
Maybe not legally, but they have an ethical duty of care to ensure that people who books rooms via their service do not have their privacy and security violated.
But actually doing anything other than passively taking money would mean lower profits so it doesn't get done.
AirBnB has a great track record - of saying "we take XXXX very seriously" - and doing bugger-all to enforce whatever XXXX might be.
Fire Regulations are a very good example. Regular hotels and B&Bs have to spend £Ks on Fire Service approved equipment, with regular checks of interlinked fire alarms. What does AirBnB recommend to its hosts? One poxy single alarm that doesn't meet UK fire regs standards. Lower standards and lower prices that undercut people who do bother about their guests.
Team member was evicted from an AirBnB flat in New York earlier this year. She didn't realise it is illegal to sublet in this way in New York. AirBnB appears to be unaware as well since they still have plenty of listing for this despite it being a well known and reported issue.
So they are quite capable of ignoring thing that are not only bad but obvious as well.
This appears to be the Modus Operandi of most startups / unicorns / rainbows / etc, etc.
Do whatever you can to corner the market, taking the fines on the chin, because, by the time people have caught on, you ARE the market
Fines don't work. Porsche has just been hit with a fine for the emissions cheating: It will dent their balance sheet, but won't affect them at all.
Govts need to wake up and take proper punitive measures that actually work
Fines are appropriate when a company unintentionally violates the law (through being incompetent or whatever). When a company knowingly and intentionally violates the law, prosecution of the individuals who decided to do that, combined with a revocation of the company's article of incorporation and/or business licenses seems appropriate.
In this case AirBnB isn't the party doing the subletting. The person who put the add for the property on airBnB is the party doing the subletting.
It's like a flea market (or any other convention-type event). The organisers of the flea-market sells stall space to vendors/exhibitors, not goods/products to consumers. The vendors who purchase the stall space from the organisers are the ones who sell product to consumers. If a torch vendor X sells at the flea market doesn't work, the customer doesn't go to the flea market organisers for warranty repair/refund/replacement, they have to find the vendor who sold it to them to conduct the warranty return.
If, however, the organisers get a lot of complaints about faulty/innapropriate goods supplied by a
specific vendor, or other bad reports about the vendor (being difficult about accepting warranty issues for example), then the flea-market organisers should blacklist that vendor from their current and future events.
like a flea market (or any other convention-type event). The organisers of the flea-market sells stall space to vendors/exhibitors, not goods/products to consumers. The vendors who purchase the stall space from the organisers are the ones who sell product to consumers. If a torch vendor X sells at the flea market doesn't work, the customer doesn't go to the flea market organisers for warranty repair/refund/replacement, they have to find the vendor who sold it to them to conduct the warranty return.
I actually do sell at flea markets. The contract a vendor signs specifically forbids certain classes of merchandise like trademark infringement or other counterfeit goods and the penalties if caught just displaying such are immediate expulsion and banning. I once saw a purse vendor being escorted out in handcuffs and their stall being packed up by law enforcement. I was busy with my own stall and never got the whole story, but there is some enforcement on some things.
I once saw a purse vendor being escorted out in handcuffs and their stall being packed up by law enforcement.
Exactly.. The stall vendor was led out in handcuffs, not the flea-market organisers. In our case of AirBnB, this means the person illegally subletting the property (the stall vendor) through AirBnB is the one who should be prosecuted, not AirBnB (the flea-market organiser).
There is a considerable difference between renting space, and taking commission relating to the supply of a service. Such an agent is then the intermediary, and must have some responsibility to the service provided. A "nod and a wink" is hardly sufficient for a company with the privilege of limited liability. Of course no one reads Terms and Conditions, so whether they are reasonable becomes a legal issue.
There are quite a few laws i n the UK still, dealing with this. the laws of contract, for example. Unfortunately there seems serious lack of monitoring and enforcement.
In this case AirBnB isn't the party doing the subletting
However, AirBnB are knowingly assisting an offender - it's can't be that hard to check the rental zip code and realise that, unless the renter is the owner, they are not allowed to enter a sub-let agreement.
So, even if the action is to pop up a box that says "you must prove you are the owner as properties in your zipcode are not allowed to be sublet by a tenant" it would be a start.
But again, that would add real-world complexity and cost to the process which might damage profitability and (potentially) open up AirBnB to action elsewhere when they don't do something similar in other jurisdictions so it ain't gonna happen.
Regulation on providers of services exists to protect customers. Genuine businesses comply with that. Compliance is a cost of doing business. Undercutting by non-compliance puts everyone at risk by driving out genuine businesses who try to offer legitimate low-cost provision.
"If it was up to the market, we'd still have child labour and workhouses."
No we wouldn't. I wouldn't buy from a company run that way and I suspect you wouldn't either. Nor would pretty much the entire 1st world.
It's a straw man argument proposed by Marxists.
@SundogUK - we do have child labour, we do have workhouses and we still have slavery. Because they are all still jolly profitable. Child labour is difficult to eradicate in places where "you don't work, you don't eat" isn't metaphorical and there is a limited social safety net.
Turns out people still buy cheap clothes and food, and don't care about the consequences. Half the time you can't even tell, the supply chain has mixed legitimate and illegal goods and inspecting your Bangladashi subcontractors temp hires to ensure they are all over 15, at the same time as you ensure the cotton has only been harvested by adults.
"I wouldn't buy from a company run that way and I suspect you wouldn't either."
I suspect that if we went through your annual consumption, you would find that you in fact do purchase goods from companies that violate your ethical lines. Even the companies that make a huge effort to keep their supply lines clean run into issues, and most simply don't bother. Just give themselves plausible deniability, then take the moral high ground....
Regulation on providers of services exists to protect customers. Genuine businesses comply with that. Compliance is a cost of doing business. Undercutting by non-compliance puts everyone at risk by driving out genuine businesses who try to offer legitimate low-cost provision.
To take this to the logical conclusion:
Is the phone book responsible for all goods and services listed inside it?
thats all AirBnB is , to me at least - a list of vendors
Pay less and take your chances. It's up to the punters do they want to risk their lives staying in an unsafe death trap because it's a bit cheaper than a fire safety checked hotel. As for hidden cameras, there's enough media stories about them in hotels as well - google Erin Andrews (NSFW) as an example.
This airbnb thing is really a disaster waiting to happen. Does an airbnb representative visit the properties to ensure that it meets current local standards? In the end it seems more like AirPimp than anything else. Sorry you didn't like the girl we sent... too bad we got your cash. It seems that only when they are called out on news outlets and social media to think to do something right. I'll never stay at one. People are strange... don't give them the chance.
I have used AirBnB, I have never been disappointed. I've met with some interesting people like that. We don't stay friends or anything, this is not a meeting service, but I'm always ready for an interesting conversation.
Of course, you need to choose carefully and be wary when on-site for any bad surprises, but I have never had any bad surprises so far.
Agreed, for eg to qualify for letting a multi-occupancy property (think student group flat) there must for eg be hard wired smoke AND incident heat detectors (can't trust students to change batteries or not nick them for other purposes). Ditto such alarms in hotels and small B&B's. So why not Air BnB lets?
That is just one issue.
I've also been very pleasantly surprised by good Airbnb places in several countries.
As for hotels... Well this week I visited one that was such a filthy shit-hole, and broke multiple fire regulations by propping open fire doors, not locking "keep locked" doors, storing clutter in fire corridors and having a fire exit that was capable of being locked from the outside!
I didn't stay and I'm working on getting my money back before getting them shut down, hung, drawn and quartered.
While I have had several nasty AirBnB surprises.
My favourite so far was a bathroom with a plain-glass door and plain glass shower cubicle. Not at all creepy, no...
That place also sold us a "twin" that was in fact a double bed, which was not quite what my friend and I had in mind. We like each other a lot, but you know...
21 days inside will only be the start, the hosts 'social credit' will also have taken a really big knock, some nice things will not be available to him for a very long time. If he's caught doing anything naughty again his next punishment will likely be severe, quite a difference from the recent Irish case.
https://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4
Onto the other hand, the Irish law is not quite up to the expectations. See, sometimes a good communist regime has clear advantage over a democratic one.
As one (in)famous politician in my native country used to say, it's better to have a sane dictatorship than to have an ailing democracy.
it's better to have a sane dictatorship
The problem with those is that they very rarely stay that way (especially on historical timescales - you might get a Vespasian followed by a Domitian[1]..).
In fact, history is littered with examples of 'good' autocratic rulers being followed by very, very bad ones.
[1] Yes - I know he was followed by Titus but he didn't last very long (a process possibly hastened by Domitian)
I gather cameras are allowed provided they are documented. It's considered reasonable for the owner to want to check the customer hasn't trashed the living room without making a visit. I gather the Irish issue was ignored because it was considered a case of failing to document rather than hiding a camera.
Depending on the type of camera It may not even be detectable on the network, could be storing video on an SD card which the owner retrieves later. If you look on websites like Aliexpress you can see they can be bought fitted hidden in clocks, smoke detectors, lightbulbs. Or you can buy just the camera unit and hide one yourself inside something that someone would be unlikely to pay much attention to.
We hid one in our office inside a ring binder on a shelf after we had a series of thefts from peoples desks to try and catch the culprits.
If you are paranoid about it then either don't stay in any rented properties or if that isn't an option then consider you could be being watched and take appropriate action, such as not to get fully naked in the room.
One thing to do, and what I think was done in the Ireland case, is to run an NMap scan on the WiFi network and look at the list of devices. Those that are not obviously there could be dodgy. This is well and good, but it doesn't work against many things and is therefore limited. If the device is recording locally, it cannot be found by any network investigation. If the host is intelligent enough, a network-connected camera would be firewalled from any ability to scan for it, too. But at least the tool is there to catch a subset of available ways to install a camera. My guess is that the first time one finds a camera, one stops using that service for housing.
Years back was rather amused to notice that a webcam or camcorder would detect bursts of IR light from a remote control when operated.
So darken room (Light sensor triggered) & do a sweep with phone camera to see any bright white spots manifest.
Night vision googles wearing icon selected (It was almost the Fanboi\Alien).
"A night vision camera and an IR light."
Suitable cameras and IR flashlights are available very inexpensively from all the usual suspects (Amazon, eBay, etc.).
But I think that if you're so concerned that buying such gear for routine use is appealing to you, it would be better to stop using the likes AirBnB entirely.
We stayed in a holiday flat in Germany a few weeks back. The first things I did were:
* attach a controlled device to the Wi-Fi
* scan the internal network for active IPs
* perform a port-scan of the network
* perform a security check of the internet connection (was there a MITM server somewhere capturing traffic or handing out dud certificates)
* perform a visual check of the place for hidden cameras.
I am happy to report that there was absolutely nothing suspicious in the flat. It was run by a very nice couple who had thought of pretty much everything; down to fresh eggs (from their farm), home made paté and home made apple juice, chocolates on the bed and a simple tablet with links to local attractions anchored to the home page.
But it was privately rented, not over Airbnb.
If I were to ever setup and Airbnb or anything like that you can guarantee that you will be filmed from at least six angles in every room. I will let you have access to the internet through a totally separate clean and secure connection, while all my security and cameras will be on a separate secured, and encrypted, network. I will even install some obvious fake cameras and point them out, show you the empty insides, tell you how it is just for show.
Anon because, well, I do have some extra space...
Sorry, but my BS detector hasn't stopped jumping at the amazing coincidence that a top-level perv just happened to let to a top level security expert ...
All of which said, it's a good story to remind all folk to TAKE CARE OUT THERE.
Really? There are many security researchers, and they have to stay somewhere, especially if they're attending security conferences or going on holidays. If they do that enough, eventually one of them finds a camera. They're also more likely to look for one and have the skills to identify places where one could be. Why is it so unlikely in your mind?
What’s with the hating on AirBnB, guys?
We own and run a couple of holiday lets in major UK city centre. We use AirBnB as just another listings site. Our properties are fully compliant with local regulations - for example, wired and interlinked smoke and heat detectors, fire fighting equipment, and regular gas and electricity inspections, etc. They’re properly insured, and we pay all our taxes.
And yes, we supply WiFi - but with enterprise grade kit. It’s WPA protected, with a captive portal to force acceptance of simple Ts and Cs. And, all connecting clients are segregated and have bandwidth limitations for QoS.
And no, we don’t have any cameras installed.
Not everyone is a crook.
Well, living near just such a city centre I'm painfully aware of the shortage of longer-term rental property in the area, and you're really just adding to the problem with that. In addition, the growing number of peak-season lets scattered around residential areas has led to it becoming a fairly unpleasant area to live for a good chunk of the year. Turns out a lot of the airbnb types don't care in the slightest that there are people in the area that have to be up and at work in the morning.
So in summary, no, nothing that you are doing is actually criminal, but you're still not going on my christmas card list
Chinese police interview techniques aren't far off of the Cardassians
Much like Japan: "if we've arrested you, you must be guilty" - they have something like a 98% conviction rate and I'm sure that their policing techniques are not *that* far in advance of ours..
There are other means of collecting video/audio than using wifi or rfi or bluetooth such as physical device recording to be analysed later.
Over Internet Protocol (IP) the devices can use UDP and not respond to any enquiry/response packets.
Powerline networking may be an easy way to circumvent the detectors.
I would feel really creeped out knowing that I had stayed at one of these places even though I wouldn't be 100% sure that the hidden cameras had been in place during my stay.
Actually, that's not a bad way to screw over an AirBnB host. Unplug the router, fit a camera to it, then leave it.
The host will eventually switch on the router and activate the camera, after you've left. Some future guest will find it or you can file an anonymous tip off. Possibly serious problems for the host with "wasn't me guv" being the only defence, however unlikely it'd sound in court.
You see an advert in the "Friday Ad" for a second-hand laptop. After purchase you find that the laptop has been fitted with spyware that streams its webcam. Would you hold Friday Ad responsible? How about if it was on eBay?
A card on the notice board of your local corner shop or church advertises a room to let. Turns out the room has a hidden camera. Is the corner shop or church liable?
Someone mentions to you that they are looking for someone to rent their spare room. You pass on the information to someone you know is looking for a cheap place to stay. Does that make *you* responsible for any camera in the room?
I do not agree that services that merely advertise goods or services offered by 3rd parties have a duty to ensure that the goods/services they list are fit for purpose and do not have any nasties. To demand that they do so would cost the service so much that it would no longer be economically viable. Do you really think that AirBnB should regularly send someone out to Bangladesh on surprise visits to inspect the £2 per night hut being offered? A single visit per year would increase the rate astronomically making it completely non-viable.
"
If I reported it to them and they continued to allow that seller to do business on their platform, I would certainly hold them responsible for failing to exercise their basic duty.
"
That's a different question to the one most are debating - whether AirBnB should be held responsible in the first place. But to your point - how deeply should the company investigate in order to decide whether the report is true or just someone being malicious or trying to eliminate the competition?
"how deeply should the company investigate in order to decide whether the report is true or just someone being malicious or trying to eliminate the competition?"
It depends on the severity of the complaint. Accusations of, say, AirBnB hosts installing spy cameras are extremely serious. AirBnB should at least send someone posing as a customer to stay in the place and check it out.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
