Utility Box Exposed As Spy Cabinet In the Netherlands

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Utility Box Exposed As Spy Cabinet In the Netherlands

Posted by timothy on Sunday April 21, 2013 @04:14AM from the all-an-elaborate-dream dept.

First time accepted submitter thejezus writes "A spy cabinet has been exposed on a public road in The Hague, the Netherlands (Google translate here). The cabinet was disguised as telecom-cabinet and was detected by the maintenance crew of Ziggo (a triple-play provider) because it was not listed as a property of the company. Upon opening, it was revealed the cabinet contained a camera and UMTS equipment. Later that day, the cabinet disappeared. 1984 much?"

179 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I could be wrong but.... by phantomfive · 2013-04-21 04:19 · Score: 4, Informative

Does a spy camera on the side of the road really justify comparisons to 1984? Are we really anywhere close to the type of life portrayed in 1984?

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
1. Re:I could be wrong but.... by kthreadd · 2013-04-21 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  I for one can see a utility box from my house. It could very well be a camera in there.
2. Re:I could be wrong but.... by centipedes.in.my.vag · 2013-04-21 04:27 · Score: 2
  
  ^ This. The leap to "1984" is non-sequitur at best.
  
  --
  Only on /. can I lose karma with 2x "5, Funny" posts.
3. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Roderic9 · 2013-04-21 04:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It doesn't justify comparison with 1984, but it and its ilk do get us closer to it. A step on the way.
4. Re:I could be wrong but.... by guttentag · 2013-04-21 04:37 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Does a spy camera on the side of the road really justify comparisons to 1984??
  Novel
  No, it would have to be in your living room. 1984-esque technology in a public place would consist of a video screen at which you hurl things and scream.
  
  Year
  Even in 1985, Dr. Emmett Brown, who was sufficiently advanced to build a time machine out of a DeLorean, had to hire some slacker kid to shoulder his ginormous video camera. If he didn't have the technology to build a self-supporting camera in 1985, it certainly wouldn't have been available in 1984.
  
  So no on both counts.
5. Re:I could be wrong but.... by rudy_wayne · 2013-04-21 04:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It doesn't justify comparison with 1984, but it and its ilk do get us closer to it. A step on the way.
  The comparison to 1984 seems a bit over the top, but, some people would argue that you don't get an Orwellian society suddenly, over night, but one small step at a time, and it happens so slowly that you don't notice it until its too late.
6. Re:I could be wrong but.... by DerekLyons · 2013-04-21 04:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Does a spy camera on the side of the road really justify comparisons to 1984?
  Of course it does, this is Slashdot, where "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" is considered a measured, reasonable, and modest response to practically everything. Slashdot users probably accounts for the 10-15% of the annual worldwide sales of tin foil.
  
  Are we really anywhere close to the type of life portrayed in 1984?
  Not even close. "1984", like many other such terms, has become a cargo cult buzzword. It's a term of opprobrium now, whose original and full meaning has been lost.
7. Re:I could be wrong but.... by hawguy · 2013-04-21 04:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Does a spy camera on the side of the road really justify comparisons to 1984? Are we really anywhere close to the type of life portrayed in 1984?
  What is the minimum criteria for comparing society to a literary work -- Is there some percentage of the work that have to similar to justify the comparison?
  I can certainly see how hidden government surveillance cabinets (if there's one, there's likely to be more than one, and who knows how many - maybe they are on every street corner?) could be compared to the ubiquitous surveillance decribed in 1984. We may be a long way from government surveillance in our homes, when we can't walk to the corner store without the government knowing about it, it seems that we're a lot closer than we used to. And now we don't even need a trusted Party official to keep track of us - thanks to facial recognition, the government can record and indefinitely store all of our public movements for later data mining.
8. Re:I could be wrong but.... by isopropanol · 2013-04-21 04:49 · Score: 2
  
  Sound more like Fleming than Orwell, especially as it's in The Hague.
9. Re:I could be wrong but.... by scarboni888 · 2013-04-21 04:52 · Score: 2
  
  Obama received the Nobel peace price while expanding military operations in Afghanistan and ordering extrajudicial murders of American citizens abroad.
  War is peace, right?
10. Re:I could be wrong but.... by flayzernax · 2013-04-21 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  If there is a spy box on every parsel of property or every street where there really doesn't need to be yes it does.
  But if this is a singular case out of a sea of nothingness, then it really is meaningless to anyone but the spies and the spied upon.
11. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Hentes · 2013-04-21 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Is there some percentage of the work that have to similar to justify the comparison?
  Yes, that's exactly what's missing in this case.
12. Re:I could be wrong but.... by phantomfive · 2013-04-21 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  So Norway is the true perpetrator pushing us to totalitarianism? I always knew that Nobel character was trouble.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
13. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Type44Q · 2013-04-21 05:00 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Does a spy camera on the side of the road really justify comparisons to 1984? Are we really anywhere close to the type of life portrayed in 1984?
  What's your point, exactly? Are you suggesting we should wait until we're that fucked before we discuss the direction things are going??
  Despite how bad things have gotten here, I'm still quite astounded that your worthless comment got modded up...
14. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Type44Q · 2013-04-21 05:08 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Does a spy camera on the side of the road really justify comparisons to 1984? Are we really anywhere close to the type of life portrayed in 1984?
  I suppose you could also have resorted to the strawman argument that the 1984 comparison doesn't apply since it depicts a future society that's collectivist rather than the fascist reality being imposed upon us... :p
15. Re:I could be wrong but.... by iggymanz · 2013-04-21 05:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  you think "1984" was to be interpreted literally? We have instead government tapping all internet and phone systems, data mining social media, warring against people who never attacked us in the name of "peace", able to legally "disappear" people who are considered threats without warrant nor oversight, a privileged powerful and wealthy few with government in their pockets engineering the media, social and economic systems for their benefit......we're there
16. Re:I could be wrong but.... by fiziko · 2013-04-21 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, particularly since we'd need to know exactly who put it there.
  
  --
  - W. Blaine Dowler
  http://www.bureau42.com
17. Re:I could be wrong but.... by icebraining · 2013-04-21 05:20 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Yes, there must be some similitude to justify the comparison, obviously.
  In 1984 the surveillance wasn't hidden, it was overt. And this is actually important, because the main concept in the novel wasn't the surveillance, but the state of mind of the Party members*, which both enabled and was enabled by the conscience of full and complete surveillance, among other things.
  People who compare this to Orwell's work either didn't read it or completely missed the point.
  * The society in 1984 didn't actually have full surveillance; in fact, only 15% of society were spied on. Winston is just part of those 15%.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
18. Re:I could be wrong but.... by phantomfive · 2013-04-21 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Technically it's now a past society, not a future society.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
19. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  everyone carry a camera and microphone that can be remotely activated ("phone")
20. Re:I could be wrong but.... by ColdWetDog · 2013-04-21 05:23 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I can see a cell tower. I'm pretty sure that . *(U()*U$Ejhhjjhkljhsdf ws is monito89984ryu5 but I'm not worr*()*43jknlkjdbzzzt.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
21. Re:I could be wrong but.... by erroneus · 2013-04-21 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  You mean to say the frog never knew it was being boiled? Amazing. It's a good thing we are smarter than frogs...
22. Re:I could be wrong but.... by phantomfive · 2013-04-21 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Are you suggesting we should wait until we're that fucked before we discuss the direction things are going??
  I'm suggesting we not compare everything to 1984, it's silly.
  
  I'm still quite astounded that your worthless comment got modded up...
  It must mean that people agree with me.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
23. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Doctor+Device · 2013-04-21 05:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  as the old saying goes...
  
  Airstrip One wasn't built in a day.
  
  --
  -It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
24. Re:I could be wrong but.... by MysteriousPreacher · 2013-04-21 05:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Obama received the Nobel peace price while expanding military operations in Afghanistan and ordering extrajudicial murders of American citizens abroad.
  War is peace, right?
  Nope, he received the prize before any of that stuff happened. In fact he received it barely before anything happened that'd in any way justify the prize going to Obama.
  The prize committee's thinking seems to be more a case of giving the award in recognition that Obama at the time hadn't made things worse and didn't seem to be hearing Jesus in his head telling him to go bomb people. In practice, a jar of mustard would have been in with a chance if it were replacing Bush.
  
  --
  -- Using the preview button since 2005
25. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 05:32 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  That time you called to say goodbye to your dying uncle... that time you sent a nude picture to your girlfriend... that time your daughter sent one to her boyfriend... the order you placed at Amazon.com... the three bottles of whiskey you put on your card... your rent check... your hot chat with that girl via text... the bill you paid for your vasectomy... the log-in times to Google, Facebook, Netflix, and other online services and how heavy your usage was.... your picture tagged by a friend on facebook... every word you type on /b/ unless you're proxied...every email you have sent or received from an IP remotely associated with you or sent unencrypted or associated with an email address remotely associated with you... your physical location within 100 meters... all unencrypted data on your phone... all data on your Google, Microsoft, and Amazon cloud drives...
  These things are obtained at a moment's notice with (at most) a rubber stamp warrant.by any one of hundreds of federal, state, local, and international government agencies.
  Are you sure we're not approaching 1984?
26. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Runaway1956 · 2013-04-21 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  "A camera" is nothing, really. But, from what I read of the UK, there isn't "a camera" anywhere. Cameras are everywhere. If I'm to believe what I read of the UK, you are almost never out of range of a camera, unless on your own private property. And, that is questionable.
  But, even with all those cameras, we still don't have 1984. Orwelle's vision starts to come true when police can confiscate any and all private video, add those to government video, and move forward and backward in time, to locate a suspect, and follow his actions.
  The vision becomes clearer when all those videos can be added to databases, and saved indefinitely.
  So, I agree with your basic premise - a camera doesn't mean much at all. The questions are, how many cameras, where are they located, and what happens to the data recorded?
  In a nation where ever traffic light has a recorder, every speed limit sign has another, every business has one or more, and random cameras are set up wherever an agency feels the need, then 1984 isn't all that far off. Maybe the title of the book should have been 2024?
  The US lags behind the UK in surveillance, but even so, the Boston Marathon bombing was solved very damned quickly, thanks to video cameras being everywhere. Businesses and private citizens contributed almost all of the video, I think, but there were cameras everywhere.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
27. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Runaway1956 · 2013-04-21 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously his comment is generating further conversation. Yeah - it gets modded up, despite the fact that I disagree with him. That's how things work. The comment isn't exactly "informative" IMHO, but the mod system only has so many choices.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
28. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Runaway1956 · 2013-04-21 05:44 · Score: 1, Redundant
  
  It would be very easy to argue that we are moving toward collectivism. All the clueless little people get together, argue and fuss, hammering out new laws for every trivial bit of nothing, then scream at their representatives to 'DO SOMETHING'. As a result, little children are arrested for wearing or making depictions of pistols, rifles, or anything that could conceivably be considered dangerous.
  Collectivism, that results in fascist-like laws. Imagine that.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
29. Re:I could be wrong but.... by arose · 2013-04-21 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Because a utility box is completely different from a white van of course. A white van sits on the side of the road, whereas a utility box is a camera in your bedroom that blasts propaganda on a regular basis. Hence 1984.
  
  --
  Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
30. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Bobakitoo · 2013-04-21 05:49 · Score: 2
  
  Except that by your definition, we were already there before 1984. In practice, as long the plebs has bread and games, we will never get there.
31. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Osgeld · 2013-04-21 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  No, Tim's just retarded
32. Re:I could be wrong but.... by iggymanz · 2013-04-21 05:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  no, we did not have populace on "internet" in 1980s, nor did we have automated systems for listening to all comm for key words. we did not have a "forever war" in place.
33. Re:I could be wrong but.... by SternisheFan · 2013-04-21 05:59 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  From Wikipedia:
  The chairman of the Committee was Thorbjørn Jagland, former Norwegian Labor Party prime minister and Secretary General of the Council of Europe since September 29, 2009. The panel met six or seven times in 2009, beginning several weeks after the February 1 nomination deadline. The winner was chosen unanimously on October 5 but was initially opposed by the Socialist Left, Conservative and Progress Party members until strongly persuaded by Jagland.
  Jagland said "We have not given the prize for what may happen in the future. We are awarding Obama for what he has done in the past year. And we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do," noting that he hoped the award would assist Obama's foreign policy efforts. Involvement in which can now be proven as early as March 2009. Jagland said the committee was influenced by a speech Obama gave about Islam in Cairo in June 2009, the president's efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and climate change, and Obama's support for using established international bodies such as the United Nations to pursue foreign policy goals. The New York Times reported that Jagland shrugged off the question of whether "the committee feared being labeled naïve for accepting a young politician’s promises at face value", stating that "no one could deny that 'the international climate' had suddenly improved, and that Mr. Obama was the main reason...'We want to embrace the message that he stands for.'"
  Obama said he was "surprised" and "deeply humbled" by the award. He stated that he does not feel he deserved the award, and that he did not feel worthy of the company the award would place him in. In remarks given at the White House Rose Garden on the day of the announcement, Obama stated, "I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments but rather an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."
  The award, he said, "must be shared with everyone who strives for justice and dignity — for the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard even in the face of beatings and bullets; for the leader imprisoned in her own home because she refuses to abandon her commitment to democracy; for the soldier who sacrificed through tour after tour of duty on behalf of someone half a world away; and for all those men and women across the world who sacrifice their safety and their freedom and sometime their lives for the cause of peace." He did not take questions from reporters after giving his statement.
  Obama announced early that he would donate the full 10 million Swedish kronor (about US$1.4 million) monetary award to charity.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize
34. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-04-21 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Does a spy camera on the side of the road really justify comparisons to 1984?
  We have built the Internet, rife for easy spying and monitoring. We came to 1984 by changing to virtual space from meatspace.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
35. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Plumpaquatsch · 2013-04-21 06:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  you think "1984" was to be interpreted literally? We have instead government tapping all internet and phone systems, data mining social media, warring against people who never attacked us in the name of "peace", able to legally "disappear" people who are considered threats without warrant nor oversight, a privileged powerful and wealthy few with government in their pockets engineering the media, social and economic systems for their benefit......we're there
  Did you even read Nineteen Eighty-Four? Quick quiz: what was the spying technique that turned in most people in the book? Tapping of phones? Surveillance by Telescreen? Nope, it was good old low-tech "squealing by somebody you trust".
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
36. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  no, we did not have populace on "internet" in 1980s, nor did we have automated systems for listening to all comm for key words. we did not have a "forever war" in place.
  We didn't? Weird, I seem to recall wiretaps and miniature recording devices (i.e. "spy gear"; yes, the REAL stuff, not the James Bond fantasy tools) existing back then. Oh, and hey, wasn't there also this one forever-war-that-wasn't-really-a-war going on around that point? Something something Cold War, was it? And I could swear the police fucked up investigations, engaged in brutality (racially-motivated or not), and were abysmal at figuring out small crimes from time to time back then, too.
  Or do you seriously believe the entire history of society and human development started with the commercialized internet? Things happened before the internet was created, you know. People in charge did stupid shit before everyone had a cell phone camera, too. All that, and society didn't crumble. Just because you've now got an easy-to-access echo chamber to discuss it ad nauseum with people who have obsessive mental issues doesn't make it worse.
37. Re:I could be wrong but.... by iggymanz · 2013-04-21 06:49 · Score: 2
  
  we did not have 300+ million recording devices attached to every telephone. some aspects of the Cold War were like the Forever War (I'm referring to the sci-fi novel), though it morphed into something else.
38. Re:I could be wrong but.... by iggymanz · 2013-04-21 06:51 · Score: 2
  
  you missed where the ubiquitous cameras were to keep the majority in line, for the squealing we also have analogous system in place.
39. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Darinbob · 2013-04-21 07:19 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  That's only because the plutonium necessary to power the miniaturized camera required a lot of shielding.
40. Re:I could be wrong but.... by gagol · 2013-04-21 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, in 1984 the cameras in our houses were government installed. Today we pay for them and carry them around. I would not be surprised if the capability to operate the microphone and camera remotely was standard issue for CIA (to use on foreigners, but still).
  
  --
  Tomorrow is another day...
41. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 07:38 · Score: 0
  
  Slashdot users do not make up even that large of a tin foil sales.
  From extensive research in hacking antennas we're smart enough to know that tin foil amplifies waves.
42. Re:I could be wrong but.... by dadelbunts · 2013-04-21 07:44 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Agreed we should save those comparisons to where they really fit. Like the whole of the U.K
43. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  Not very close to the 1984 society, there isn't as much employment and the government is in the pay of _really_ evil people.
44. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 07:58 · Score: 0
  
  Let me summarize that. Encouraging the use of the U.N. to police the world. Now don't get me wrong, I hear the term U.N. I have a hard time believing that I'm hearing of some effective global police force to stop people from polluting lakes, saving children and kittens everywhere from totalitarian oppression, rape, and guns.
  This means it boils down to good ol'e politics. Sounding good but meaning shit where the rubber meets the road.
45. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Opportunist · 2013-04-21 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  We have everything. Plebs being worried about so much (terrorism, economy, jobs, homes...) that they don't have time to worry about the loss of liberties. It's not 100% accurate, but the distraction by more pressing needs to forget about the "lesser" needs like freedom or privacy is there.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
46. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Opportunist · 2013-04-21 08:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes, but those mini spy cams were not directed at the population, they were used against the evil of then, the bad Russkies. Plus, our politicians had to play nice to keep reminding us that we're the good guys. We don't do oppressive things like keeping tabs on every person, hiring snitches from the population to spy on the people in their apartment block, shooting randomly at suspects because they "look funny" or make people disappear in some remote concentration camps without trial (or a kangaroo court trial at best).
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
47. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Opportunist · 2013-04-21 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. It has to be a mesh at the right spacing.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
48. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 08:12 · Score: 0
  
  Except it's not "people" writing these laws and screaming, it's corporations and their lobbyists. Then they astroturf the internet to get the politically tunnel visioned masses to scream about it as well. The "collectivism" here is a tiny minority of extremely wealthy people plotting against every other person in the world, and (sadly) successfully turning people against their own best interest without them even realizing it.
49. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  Well that is the thing about complacency. First step to it happening here is thinking "It can't happen here."
50. Re:I could be wrong but.... by janimal · 2013-04-21 08:22 · Score: 2
  
  It's sad, if so many actually do. 1984 was just barely fiction, when it was written. It was thinly veiled Stalinist USSR and many other places. Getting to a 1984 state of things is easier than you might imagine, and the moment you think it's absurd is the moment a bunch of goons will succeed in trapping you in just such a system.
  I wouldn't draw conclusions based on some cameras beside the road, as covert surveillance is nothing new. What has me worried is ubiquitous surveillance in the hands of a few. The infrastructure for that is already in place. The battle for freedom is in the courtrooms and legistlatures. Slashdot is already on top of this one though.
  As it stands, this story is uninteresting, unless technical details of this box were revealed to be unique in some way.
51. Re:I could be wrong but.... by SEE · 2013-04-21 08:28 · Score: 2
  
  Obama received the Nobel peace price while expanding military operations in Afghanistan and ordering extrajudicial murders of American citizens abroad.
  War is peace, right?
  Nope, he received the prize before any of that stuff happened.
  Ignorance is strength?
  In fact, between the February 1 nomination deadline and the October 5th award, Obama did in fact direct an escalation of the war in Afghanistan that increased US personnel deaths from hostile action in Afghanistan by +64% compared to the same months of the previous year.
  And it certainly was due to escalation, not a statistical blip. By the end of Obama's first year in office, such deaths were twice those in Bush's last year. And for Obama's first term, they ended at a total triple that of Bush's entire presidency.
52. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  You mean Alfred Nobel, the Swedish chemist, engineer, and armaments manufacturer who invented dynamite? Yeah, always had a bad feeling about him.
53. Re:I could be wrong but.... by phantomfive · 2013-04-21 08:29 · Score: 0
  
  1984 is essentially the same as Nazi Germany. Everyone learns about both of them in High School (at least in the US), and feel like they are intelligent by name dropping.
  
  Godwin's law exists because if you can't make a point without referring to Nazis, then you don't know enough about history and life to make a point. Same thing with 1984. If your worldview is so narrow that you see 1984 in everything, then you're an ignoramus.
  
  Thus mentioning Nazis, and 1984, is a flag-marker for ignoramuses. Knowledgeable people use analogies that are more accurate.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
54. Re:I could be wrong but.... by l0ungeb0y · 2013-04-21 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  No -- but we have Ultra-Feminist Operatives (who prefer to be called "Joan of Arc") listening in on private conversations at Developer Conferences for "Trigger Words" in order to shame them via Social Media. This is of course after AdaInitiative has reviewed the topics covered and approved the content of the conference, removing any speaker or content that does not fit with the approved New Speak.
55. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, child, get off my lawn, then go do some research. Start with the FBI under Hoover. Then, look at McCarthy. Don't forget the pre-Miranda legal system. That's what we do in this country, fuck with people. It only stops when someone stands up and makes it stop. And, no, moaning about it on /. does NOT count
56. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  See something? Say something.
57. Re:I could be wrong but.... by turp182 · 2013-04-21 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  I think there were two unspoken reasons Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize before being able to actually justify such an award (wasn't his fault, he didn't have a chance to earn it).
  First, and foremost, he is the first black President of the United States. That is/was a huge deal. The end of the US Civil War (1865) was almost 150 years ago, or 6 to 7 generations using an average birth age of 20-25. Racism is still an issue, but we've moved forward a lot. People can be bigoted but it generally doesn't lead to crime these days (fair labor treatment, not necessarily), black-on-black crime is another story, and is far too common.
  The second reason was an intention to influence Obama's approach to potentially starting more wars. The Bush 2 doctrine was terrible in terms of human lives and dollars down the drain, and for what? The wars last/lasted far too long; certainly a bad decision to invade Iraq, Afghanistan is more complicated and justifiable.
  The Nobel was a preemptive strike on Obama's foreign policy, in favor of peace.
  From my non-party affiliated position he's done a decent job. We're mostly out of Iraq but I'm not sure of the status of the Afghanistan war. It wasn't his fault he couldn't close Guantanamo (a first rate terrorist creation machine if ever there was one, how would you or your family or friends like you to be locked up for many years without justice?).
  Could he have done better? Probably. Could he have done worse? Certainly.
  
  --
  BlameBillCosby.com
58. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Threni · 2013-04-21 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'm more upset by the teen-twattery of "1984 much". Are YouTube comments currently inaccessible?
59. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  I was born in early 80's.
  My parents were born early 50's.
  For our entire lives, we have been at war with east asia.
  It's just that most people didn't know it until the N. Korea thing came up again recently...
60. Re:I could be wrong but.... by phantomfive · 2013-04-21 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I admit that is probably what annoyed me the most too. Though really, the tone fits the content. So maybe it's a piece of rhetorical genius. Maybe even unwitting rhetorical genius.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
61. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Antique+Geekmeister · 2013-04-21 10:16 · Score: 2
  
  Given the history of monitoring technologies embedded in telephone systems, such as the AT&T fiber optics publicized in 2005, it's an ongoing problem. (https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying) Even in the USA, the use of disasters to publicize national security risks and use the intelligence resources granted to prevent foreign threats has been repeatedly used to gather political intelligence and harass political opponents, rather than to prevent crimes or warfare. So it seems reasonable to assume it is not "singular".
62. Re:I could be wrong but.... by WGFCrafty · 2013-04-21 10:22 · Score: 3
  
  no, we did not have populace on "internet" in 1980s, nor did we have automated systems for listening to all comm for key words. we did not have a "forever war" in place.
  We didn't? Weird, I seem to recall wiretaps and miniature recording devices (i.e. "spy gear"; yes, the REAL stuff, not the James Bond fantasy tools) existing back then. Oh, and hey, wasn't there also this one forever-war-that-wasn't-really-a-war going on around that point? Something something Cold War, was it? And I could swear the police fucked up investigations, engaged in brutality (racially-motivated or not), and were abysmal at figuring out small crimes from time to time back then, too.
  Or do you seriously believe the entire history of society and human development started with the commercialized internet? Things happened before the internet was created, you know. People in charge did stupid shit before everyone had a cell phone camera, too. All that, and society didn't crumble. Just because you've now got an easy-to-access echo chamber to discuss it ad nauseum with people who have obsessive mental issues doesn't make it worse.
  This. For much of history you could be held arbitrarily in jail, there were a few exceptions. We may have some questionable trials (Guantanamo) but in General in America as an American you are afforded some of the best rights on earth. Our eternal vigilance must go towards keeping it that way, as ways of infringing have grown in size and sophistication.
  .
63. Re:I could be wrong but.... by WGFCrafty · 2013-04-21 10:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yes, but those mini spy cams were not directed at the population, they were used against the evil of then, the bad Russkies. Plus, our politicians had to play nice to keep reminding us that we're the good guys. We don't do oppressive things like keeping tabs on every person, hiring snitches from the population to spy on the people in their apartment block, shooting randomly at suspects because they "look funny" or make people disappear in some remote concentration camps without trial (or a kangaroo court trial at best).
  Martin Luther King Jr.? Watergate? McCarthy?
  There was plenty of domestic intelligence often aimed wildly at whoever was in the way.
  Hell, J. Robert Oppenheimer was outed and accused, you are glossing over many disgusting ordeals.Many prominent people were entangled in webs of ridicule and half truths. Stopping the reds would be achieved no matter the cost. Human experimentation without informed consent on children and prisoners - black syphilis patients not told about penicillin. "Down-winders" exposed to fallout from MANY tests. Bacteria spread over town to watch epidemic infection profiles. People dosed with LSD without their knowledge.
  Stop acting like human right violations only occurred elsewhere or to others people. The United States is guilty of many questionable and downright illegal things.
64. Re:I could be wrong but.... by mianne · 2013-04-21 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  Right now, people are indeed making comparisons to 1984, absurd as they might seem. Indeed, a common sentiment expressed this past week is that it was tough, but that we're tougher and should celebrate! When, since at least the mid-20th century, have men not used metaphors about sports cars to describe attractive women? Admittedly there isn't much talk these days about the Rhythm Pigs. But I can say with certainly that most males have always seen attractive women as objects of sexual desire and conquest--whether such women are an important authority figure in their lives, a supermodel whom they've never met and never will, or even a "lady of the night." It is a sad fact, but some men become too obsessed with women leading to very tragic endings.
  
  So except for the spy cameras on the street and the references to James Paul Koncek, I must say that '1984' is very relevant to the modern world in which we live.
  
  --
  Javascript, cookies, flash, and ActiveX must be enabled in order to view this sig.
65. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 11:26 · Score: 0
  
  No. More like Brave New World rather that 1984.
66. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 12:28 · Score: 0
  
  Specific taps on suspects (even pellet id'd suspects) isn't the same as taps on everyone in the US "just in case".
67. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Kanasta · 2013-04-21 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  OK so they mixed 1984 with Brave New World.
68. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 13:36 · Score: 0
  
  Did you actually read the book? It clearly states that the date is an estimate.
69. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  Suspects? Hoover was building a database of things to blackmail those with political power, or anyone else he wanted to, "just in case".
70. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 15:13 · Score: 0
  
  whooooooosh
71. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 15:38 · Score: 0
  
  You all realize that following one chicken little to spite another still means you are following a chicken little, right? One guilt by association does not excuse the other.
72. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 15:46 · Score: 0
  
  I guess you haven't seen the new Samsung smart TVs. They have an always on microphone and camera. Requires you to sign away all of your privacy in order to use the"smart" functions.
73. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-04-21 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  Funny thing is, last time I looked, you could buy a gadget to do this directly from Ebay for around $6. All you have to do is plug in a SIM card.
  
  Buy one, take off the cover, put it in a stolen utility box... done.
74. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 16:43 · Score: 0
  
  In the next season of Breaking Bad: President gets a Nobel Piece Price, breaks out the Bad.
75. Re:I could be wrong but.... by MysteriousPreacher · 2013-04-21 19:02 · Score: 1
  
  I stand corrected. Thanks.
  
  --
  -- Using the preview button since 2005
76. Re:I could be wrong but.... by JosKarith · 2013-04-21 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  You're right. 1984 didn't have anywhere near as many cameras...
  
  --
  'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
77. Re:I could be wrong but.... by cHiphead · 2013-04-21 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. This isn't just a spy camera, this has a cellular device that lets it upload or stream on the fly, this is big brother-esque secret monitoring of the public. I'm sure it was there to watch a particular suspect or event, but in capturing images from a public area, it is also monitoring innocent people and can be used to target people not suspected of a crime for any seemingly anti-social behavior. It is what it is, don't dilute the reality of modern technology. We're fucked in terms of monitoring, just work with/against the system as best you can to survive. I've got a magic machine in my pocket that can tell me just about anything on any subject that I can ask it about 24/7, and broadcast and receive video and audio on the fly. In 1984 it was 'telescreens' along the line of TVs that watched people, in the real world it turns out to be a more subtle, smaller device, your cell phone. (Not to dismiss webcams on laptops, etc.)
  I'm don't ascribe to conspiracy nuttery, but I do try view it as matter of factly as possible, this is just simple, easy observation with a hint of logical deduction and inference.
  We're in the future now, it's awesome and scary and has the potential for grand leaps of knowledge and human progress or horrendous destruction of civilization.
  Cheers.
  
  --
  
  This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
78. Re:I could be wrong but.... by RMingin · 2013-04-22 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  Click here to report anti-patriotic activities citizen! Remember, it could be a test, and Big Brother is watching! If you SEE something, SAY something!
  Sincerely, your department of Homeland Security! (formerly ThinkPol)
  
  --
  The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
79. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  1984 was about exploring the state if everyone was reallllllly equal and it must stay that way. Much like Animal Farm was about only a select few being more equal than others. He then went on about the abuses that can rise up out of each system. He was into how 'the state' can manipulate people into doing things and the different motivators of that.
  Many people miss that point and focus in on the techniques used in the books. Not why they were doing it. People seem to miss the point that others can be manipulated by what they read and hear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Influence_on_language_and_writing
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell
80. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 02:08 · Score: 0
  
  Huh? If Doc Brown built a time machine, he could make any advanced technology available to 1984 if he chose.
81. Re:I could be wrong but.... by alexo · 2013-04-22 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  Martin Luther King Jr.? Watergate? McCarthy?
  There was plenty of domestic intelligence often aimed wildly at whoever was in the way.
  
  The difference is that now it is aimed at everybody.
82. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 02:22 · Score: 0
  
  I for one can see a utility box from my house. It could very well be a camera in there.
  I can see Russia from my house. Could those socialist commies be spying on me? - S.
83. Re:I could be wrong but.... by alexo · 2013-04-22 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Obama [...] stated that he does not feel he deserved the award, and that he did not feel worthy of the company the award would place him in.
  Like Cordell Hull, Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat, et al.?
84. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 02:35 · Score: 0
  
  Whoever put the box there might have considered that "overt"
85. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  Dumbass! So, it's ok to take away our rights, as long as we have more than everyone else? You people are so blind. You don't have any of the rights you think you do anymore. There is no right to trial by jury, no right not to be searched anymore. You just don't care because they haven't come for you yet.
86. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 03:01 · Score: 0
  
  It's a good thing we are smarter than frogs...
  Citation needed.
87. Re:I could be wrong but.... by BumbaCLot · 2013-04-22 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't have bothered commenting on this were it not for the final unneeded sentence.
  Iraq casualties under Bush: 4222
  Afghanistan casualties under Bush: 630
  Iraq casualties under Obama: 264
  Afghanistan casualties under Obama: 1570
  Care to distort anymore truths while you are at it?
88. Re:I could be wrong but.... by SEE · 2013-04-22 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  I was explicitly talking about escalation of the war in Afghanistan. So I talked about fatalities caused by hostile action in Afghanistan.
  If the US quadrupled the number of troops it had in Japan, there would be an increase in the number of US troops killed in Japan, but that wouldn't tell you anything about a war being escalated (since there is no war in Japan to escalate); it would just be evidence that you get more fatal accidents in a country when you have more people in a country. On the other hand, deaths caused by hostile action tells you about how much more intense a war is.
  Similarly, whatever happens in Iraq doesn't say anything about what's happening in Afghanistan, and so doesn't say anything about an Afghanistan escalation. It's like saying, "Truman presided over a great reduction in US casualties in Germany, so it's unfair to say he got into a war in Korea". Say what? Again, the point was to show there was a general escalation in Afghanistan, as opposed to a transitory spike during a few specific months.
  So, dealing with the real numbers:
  US fatalities due to hostile action in Afghanistan under Bush (for simplicity's sake, all from January 2000 through the end of January 2009): 424
  US fatalities due to hostile action in Afghanistan in Obama's first term (for simplicity's sake, February 2009 through the end of December 2012): 1,305
  (Go ahead, follow the link, use the US filter, the Hostile action filter, and the Afghanistan only filter.)
  Hey, guess what? 424Ã--3 is 1,272, and 1,272 is less than 1,305. US fatalities due to hostile action in Afghanistan were more than three times higher in Obama's first term than in all of Bush's presidency. That probably indicates that Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan.
89. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Sigg3.net · 2013-04-23 21:28 · Score: 1
  
  Jagland has stated that Nobel's will includes people who inspire the world, and at the time Obama certainly was perceived as something of a Martin Luther King peace officer..
  It was hot and trendy, especially in Europe.
  
  --
  Defining Statistics and Social Research
90. Re:I could be wrong but.... by WGFCrafty · 2013-04-29 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  I can leave if I want, and so can you, you stupid cunt.
Re:Weird by infogulch · 2013-04-21 04:22 · Score: 2

No, they want to figure out how the "coffee shops" were legislated.
Re:Weird by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 04:29 · Score: 5, Informative

Who would be spying on the Netherlands? Someone after the secret to wooden shoes, perhaps?
This "Schilderswijk" where the cabinet was discovered is a notorious low-income suburb. It's more likely to be native intelligence spying on locals in fear of extremists.
pictures of inside by xatr0z · 2013-04-21 04:29 · Score: 5, Informative

Some pictures of the cabinet are found here: http://tweakers.net/nieuws/88635/providerwijkkast-haagse-schilderswijk-zat-vol-spionageapparatuur.html
1. Re:pictures of inside by TheRealMindChild · 2013-04-21 04:42 · Score: 2
  
  So I am looking at these pictures. It is hard to tell where some of the wires are leading, but from what I do see:
  
  - This looks like a normal grocery store old style CCTV camera.
  - The camera leads to a frequency converter box of some sort (50hz to 60hz?)
  - Then it looks to be sending that to a chain of portable hard drive looking video recording devices
  
  These MAY have had some sort of wireless capability (not that I can tell though), but in a box like that, with that equipment, you would have to be right next to the poll to connect.
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
2. Re:pictures of inside by rudy_wayne · 2013-04-21 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Some pictures of the cabinet are found here: http://tweakers.net/nieuws/88635/providerwijkkast-haagse-schilderswijk-zat-vol-spionageapparatuur.html
  
  LOL. The VCR isn't plugged in.
  http://ic.tweakimg.net/ext/i/imagelarge/1366532940.jpeg
3. Re:pictures of inside by silas_moeckel · 2013-04-21 04:45 · Score: 2
  
  Analog composite video??? Somebody get whoever installed this thing into the last decade please.
  
  --
  No sir I dont like it.
4. Re:pictures of inside by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  LOL. The VCR isn't plugged in.
  Which box is a Video Cassette Recorder? I'm not seeing it.
5. Re:pictures of inside by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  someone trying to be funny that hasn't worked with this kit. there's are many things that use similar sockets.
6. Re:pictures of inside by will_die · 2013-04-21 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Talk about a bad job of cabling. This is suppose a device that can be moved around, or you would need to reach in quickly remove some taping device and you have cables in the way of your operation.
7. Re:pictures of inside by Opportunist · 2013-04-21 08:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  NOW I'm convinced it was a government job!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
8. Re:pictures of inside by Opportunist · 2013-04-21 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Put on an official looking phone company coverall, as well as your "I belong here" face and you can unscrew, open, fiddle with and even steal whatever equipment you want to.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
9. Re:pictures of inside by PPH · 2013-04-21 17:16 · Score: 1
  
  Wow. State of the art equipment today (available to the public) is about the size of a pack of cigarettes.
  It's a shame The Netherlands doesn't have overhead wiring. About 20 years ago, our local cops stuffed this kind of equipment inside dummy pole-mounted transformers (pole pigs in the utility vernacular). You get a much better view of the surrounding territory from a higher vantage point. Its also more difficult for the public to get a close look at it. I imagine street light fixtures are modded these days.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
10. Re:pictures of inside by kmoser · 2013-04-22 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Makes you wonder why telephone company officials were fiddling with something that they knew wasn't theirs to begin with.
Re:Weird by Hentes · 2013-04-21 04:29 · Score: 1

Industrial espionage, probably.
Re: Weird by SilenceBE · 2013-04-21 04:35 · Score: 2

I think they have the same trouble as here in Belgium. A lot of local islamic extremist are recruting young people on the street to fight in syria. I think it are those kind of people that are the targets of these kind of surveillance.
My question is... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 04:37 · Score: 0

Where was the camera pointed exactly? What was it spying on?
1. Re:My question is... by marcovje · 2013-04-21 05:04 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  A square. Dutch editions of the news speculate that it was there to monitor the coming and goings of militants. Might be related to recruiting of Jihadists for Syria too, at least that has been a big news item in these parts recently.
Lazy Intelligence? by marcovje · 2013-04-21 04:37 · Score: 2

It is typical that it is found in the Hague. The Hague is the seat of the Dutch intelligence services, and apparently they are a bit lazy.
It's like Intelligence services in the US only operated in Washington DC.
People in Limburg and Friesland can rest assured. No chance that the intelligence services will ever make it that far.
1. Re:Lazy Intelligence? by guttentag · 2013-04-21 04:46 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The Hague is the seat of the Dutch intelligence services...
  More importantly, The Hague is the location of the International Court of Justice, the judicial arm of the United Nations, as well as a number of other international courts. Definitely a city of international importance.
2. Re:Lazy Intelligence? by fondacio · 2013-04-21 05:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  But pretty much irrelevant to this story. The neighbourhood in which they found the cabinet is far removed from where the international institutions are and from where the internationals live. As mentioned by previous posts, the Schilderswijk is a low income area with a large immigrant population. The purpose of the cabinet is most likely to help a police investigation into anything between organised crime or jihad recruitment, and on Dutch websites some have already pointed out that exposing this method effectively renders it useless in the future, but police have been doing it for at least ten years. This kind of surveillance was most likely done with the permission of a public prosecutor, unless it was the intelligence services in which case another law applies.
Police? by emanuele_fanton · 2013-04-21 04:38 · Score: 1

I think it is simply police surveillance. Nothing strange.
Housing of international warcriminals in the Hague by marcovje · 2013-04-21 04:40 · Score: 1

Everyone knows that in the Scheveningen suburb of the The Hague, international warcriminals are housed!
Just surveillanceO by santax · 2013-04-21 04:42 · Score: 1

Just an investigation by the AIVD or MIVD. The part of town where it was found is being said to be used for recruitment by terrorists. Only thing I can hope for it wasn't a high target, because if it was, he/she/they now know they were under investigation. For the rest, just a big box with a cam and a modem to send shit back. Nothing special, but a really nice camera though!
1. Re:Just surveillanceO by Z00L00K · 2013-04-21 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  And the result now is that every utility box in the world will be seen as a suspect box.
  Watch out for unusual holes in such boxes. The remedy would be to place a sticker over the holes.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
2. Re:Just surveillanceO by santax · 2013-04-21 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Well in this case the material used wasn't miniaturized, it used a good lens/camera. The effectiveness and quality of a lens stands in direct relation with it's size. So they have to use bigger objects. This one was an easy one, but I'm sure they can just park a car with the same setup in it. Or a trailer. Or a birdsnest, if the setup can (and it can easily) be miniaturized a bit more. So I'm sure this is just one method of hiding the cam. They have more. Despite the jokes, these guys aren't idiots.
3. Re:Just surveillanceO by tehlinux · 2013-04-21 16:21 · Score: 1
  
  The AIVD confirm or deny to be related.
  
  --
  Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
Quis Custodiot Ipsos Custodes by Antique+Geekmeister · 2013-04-21 04:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

One of the most important tasks when discovering an electronic intruder or monitor is to trace if they try to clean up and remove their tracks. This is as true for electronic "spy boxes" as it is for unauthorized network taps, rootkitted servers, and hacked websites. It's too bad the discoverers didn't have the resources to set up a webcam to monitor the spy box, itself, to get data on the vehicle or faces of those removing the spy box.
1. Re:Quis Custodiot Ipsos Custodes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 06:30 · Score: 0
  
  One of the most important tasks when discovering an electronic intruder or monitor is to trace if they try to clean up and remove their tracks. This is as true for electronic "spy boxes" as it is for unauthorized network taps, rootkitted servers, and hacked websites. It's too bad the discoverers didn't have the resources to set up a webcam to monitor the spy box, itself, to get data on the vehicle or faces of those removing the spy box.
  You'd probably discover something incredibly mundane like local authorities conducting investigation of drug traffickers.
  Occam's Razor folks.
Re:Weird by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-04-21 04:46 · Score: 5, Funny

This "Schilderswijk" where the cabinet was discovered is a notorious low-income suburb.
It's settled, then. Someone pinched the stuff and sold it to make a bit of money on the side. Has the spy agency tried scouring the local pawn shops?

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:Weird by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 04:56 · Score: 0

Exactly - Now Please delete this article - We do not wish to aid the enemy.
triple-play provider? by PopeRatzo · 2013-04-21 05:03 · Score: 2

What is a "triple-play provider"?

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
1. Re:triple-play provider? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 05:10 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  television + internet + telephone
2. Re:triple-play provider? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  TV+Telephone service+Internet service over the same cable
3. Re:triple-play provider? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  What is a "triple-play provider"?
  A company that can provide Phone, Internet and TV service.
4. Re:triple-play provider? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 05:18 · Score: 0
  
  Internet, Landline phone and tleevisin.
5. Re:triple-play provider? by Lehk228 · 2013-04-21 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  Phone TV and ethernet
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
6. Re:triple-play provider? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  The triple play is the best service teir in the red light district and the telecom industry. OP was referring to the latter.
7. Re:triple-play provider? by janimal · 2013-04-21 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  I know I wouln't pay for triple-play, but if my wife got two of her friends to cooperate, I'm sure I wouldn't say no to having it for free.
8. Re:triple-play provider? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 14:31 · Score: 0
  
  You need to go to menu -> settings -> channels -> tuning and select fine-tune.
  You're welcome...
9. Re:triple-play provider? by BitZtream · 2013-04-21 18:33 · Score: 1
  
  So ... you'd sit back and watch I guess, since you'd make it some sort of quad rather than a triple.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
10. Re:triple-play provider? by steelfood · 2013-04-22 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  A provider of three-strikes* services.
  * bowling, not baseball.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
police observation, not espionage by sciencewatcher · 2013-04-21 05:11 · Score: 4, Informative

This looks much more like a police operation. A couple of years ago a small nondescript trailer was parked in Amsterdam to observe a meeting between two criminals. One of those started a shooting spree and the police officers inside the trailer were lucky not to be hit. They couldn't get out of the trailer from the inside quick enough to chase them. There probably is a notorious criminal living within sight there. The Ziggo employees were irresponsible in publicizing this. Ziggo is a cable company.
1. Re:police observation, not espionage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 05:31 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Impossible! Everyone knows that Europe has exactly zero shootings due to their perfect gun control. This poster must be the NRA trolling ;-)
2. Re:police observation, not espionage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 05:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  > The Ziggo employees were irresponsible in publicizing this.
  The Ziggo employees had no duty to the police.
3. Re:police observation, not espionage by utkonos · 2013-04-21 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  The police actually hide the surveillance cameras in your country?
  
  Fascinating.
4. Re:police observation, not espionage by santax · 2013-04-21 06:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  To be honest, as one of the very few licensed gun owners here in the Netherlands.... we sometimes (rare though) have gun shots.But we don't have shootings like you guys. Only once in history a couple of years ago a schizophrenic but licensed gun-owner had a shooting in a mall here. But that is unique.
5. Re:police observation, not espionage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  > The Ziggo employees were irresponsible in publicizing this.
  The Ziggo employees had no duty to the police.
  You realize we pay police to do what they do right, I mean they are us... we ask them to do that job. It's not like they're paid megabucks either, they live in the same communities you do.
  In a civilized world you DO have the responsibility of reporting crime and assisting the police.
  If you choose not to, well fine, there's no law against being a douche bag.
  However, if you interfere with their work you'll find yourself on the wrong side of the law and public opinion. Good luck with that.
6. Re:police observation, not espionage by tulcod · 2013-04-21 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  If you choose not to, well fine, there's no law against being a douche bag.
  Except there is. In the Netherlands, you are obliged to report serious crime with authorities.
7. Re:police observation, not espionage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 07:18 · Score: 0
  
  I do not find your story credible without a link. Shooting sprees only happen in third world countries and the USA.
8. Re:police observation, not espionage by SimpleFacts · 2013-04-21 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, my thoughts exactly. It is pretty commonplace to use surveillance devices such as this in situations involving serious on-going criminal activity. In the US, we disguise them as transformer boxes, cell tower junction boxes, and a wide variety of other things that are commonly referred to as "pole-cams." This is remarkably effective in areas where the criminals use counter-surveillance and where in person surveillance is all but impossible.
9. Re:police observation, not espionage by sciencewatcher · 2013-04-21 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  here is a link to a report by an Amsterdam news channel: http://www.at5.nl/artikelen/58203/rechercheurs-keken-toe-bij-liquidatie-hillis
10. Re:police observation, not espionage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  Then they should have labeled their box instead of secretly sneaking it away. For all we know it could have been a camera owned by Al Qaeda. Personally, if I were to find a box on my property with electronic goodies inside, I would evoke forfeiture unless someone comes with a court document saying I do not have that right on my property.
11. Re:police observation, not espionage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 08:53 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  In the US it is equally rare for a legal gun owner to do the same. It is something often conveniently forgotten.
12. Re:police observation, not espionage by chihowa · 2013-04-21 09:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Shootings here in the US aren't exactly a regular part of our lives. Neither I, nor anyone I know, has ever even heard a gunshot (outside of a shooting range) in my entire life. They may not be as rare as they are in Europe, but they are still exceedingly rare here, too. Besides the recent school shootings, the vast majority of shootings happen by (and to) the criminal element in the terribly seedy parts of town. Our crime here seems to be more of a social problem (wealth inequality and drug laws) and less of a technical problem (access to guns). Ordinary citizens rarely, if ever, see gun crime.
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
13. Re:police observation, not espionage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 17:42 · Score: 0
  
  The right thing to do is contact the police. In most countries even forfeiture requires you to have first reported the item to police and then no legal claim having being made on said item for a period of time. Many countries, including the one I live in you can be charged for theft if you simply take an item that does not belong to you, no matter where you found it. You only have 2 legal courses of action, take said item and report it to police or leave it alone.
14. Re:police observation, not espionage by BitZtream · 2013-04-21 18:35 · Score: 1
  
  You are in the US as well, at least in every state I've lived in.
  Its a shame it has to be a law to be a good citizen.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
15. Re:police observation, not espionage by BitZtream · 2013-04-21 18:36 · Score: 1
  
  If you want people to know you're watching them, you don't hide the camera or hide it in an intentionally obvious place, but not so obvious they realize you put it there for them to find.
  If you don't want people to know you're watching them, you hide the camera where they can't find it.
  People who know they are being watched behave differently, regardless of the reason they are being watched or who is doing it. Human nature just works that way.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
16. Re:police observation, not espionage by utkonos · 2013-04-21 18:52 · Score: 1
  
  Notorious criminals behave like someone is watching them most of the time, I would imagine.
17. Re:police observation, not espionage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 21:44 · Score: 0
  
  There was the dude who locked down that Phillips tower because he was fed up with black bars on the side of his telly (he'd specifically bought a widescreen to avoid the black bars on the top and bottom of the screen)
18. Re:police observation, not espionage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 03:47 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, gang activity is responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the US.
  Although, I strongly disagree that gang activity is caused by wealth inequality. Many are born into poor circumstances and many have risen above those circumstances without resorting to criminal activity. At the same time, many who are wealthy have committed crimes. I think law-abiding citizens who are poor would find your broad generalization quite insulting. By your logic, we should excuse criminal activity based on one's income -- a progressive criminal justice system, if you will. After all, wealth inequality is to blame, not the individual.
  While gang activity isn't caused by wealth inequality, a case can be made that US drug laws have encouraged a black market that these gangs thrive on. Having said that, no gang member is forced to break any laws or harm anyone. Everyone is responsible for their own actions.
19. Re:police observation, not espionage by chihowa · 2013-04-22 05:17 · Score: 2
  
  I see where you're coming from, but I want to emphasize that I see being from a poor family with few opportunities for improvement a reason for involvement in crime, but not an excuse for it. I'm not interested in being lenient on criminals because of their upbringing, I'm more interested in fixing the upbringing so that there are fewer criminals. Of course, a real practical solution to this problem is the hard part.
  The drug war case is inexcusable on the part of society. Black markets are extremely profitable and even "respectable" bankers like HSBC are involved in them. Legislating a black market into existence is never the correct approach.
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
20. Re:police observation, not espionage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 11:37 · Score: 0
  
  They may not be as rare as they are in Europe, but they are still exceedingly rare here, too.
  
  Did the US experience ...
  a) Hitler and the Fascists ...
  b) Stalin, the murderer of millions (far more than Hitler) ...
  c) Other communist atrocities ...
  c) Yugoslavia and ethic cleansing?
  You have a very selective view of world events if you think gun deaths are rarer in Europe than in the USA.
You mean... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 05:20 · Score: 0

You mean...
cargo cult .

Like the ones you used?
1. Re:You mean... by Kaenneth · 2013-04-21 05:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  His usage was perfectly cromulent.
2. Re:You mean... by ThePeices · 2013-04-21 13:06 · Score: 2
  
  His usage was perfectly cromulent.
  What does star trek have to do with this?
Good cause by Bram+Stolk · 2013-04-21 05:56 · Score: 0

It is for a good cause.
That neighbourhood is used by Jihad recruiters.
Every Jihadist they can stop is a big win.
I worry more about the cancer called 'religion' than I am about surveillance.

--
Bram Stolk http://stolk.org/tlctc/
Wrong movie by gmuslera · 2013-04-21 06:02 · Score: 1

Maybe that cabinet dissapeared by itself, once discovered. Skynet anyone?
A single spy camera don't imply 1984, no single water drop can be blamed for the flood. The rest of the simptoms, of course, goes straight into Brave New World, circa 1984.
1. Re:Wrong movie by jaymzter · 2013-04-21 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  no single water drop can be blamed for the flood
  No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible .
  
  --
  If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
Reasonable surveillance? by TeslaBoy · 2013-04-21 06:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

In ten days, a new King of the Netherlands is being crowned near this location. In this case, i think a little surveillance is reasonable. The Netherlands is not a surveillance-heavy country, but this may be just a case of good security practice. That is, watching out for a credible threat, not paranoia.
1. Re:Reasonable surveillance? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 22:06 · Score: 0
  
  Nope, different city. This device was found in the Hague, which is the seat of the government and the current Queen's working palace. The crowning will be in Amsterdam, which is the capital of the Netherlands. Still, with jihadi's actively recruiting in The Hague, and a major event coming up (1.5 million+ people expected to come to Amsterdam) the police would be insane to ignore those real threats. We've had quite a few Islamic terrorists here, especially since 9/11.
yes we are by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 07:24 · Score: 0

but retards like you never leave the house, so you would have no idea in your little tiny fictional world.
I could be wrong but....prenumbers. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 07:45 · Score: 2, Funny

Someone should write some books to address this issue. Title them, 1980,1981,1982,1983...
In a totalitarian dictatorship, by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 08:01 · Score: 0

people disappear. In a democratic nation, spy cabinets disappear.
Only acceptable in a police state by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 08:23 · Score: 0

The Netherlands is not a police state. Surveillance equipment placed unlawfully in a public place is most definitely strange and not to be accepted. The police can obtain a legal warrant to tap one specific person or their private property, but not to tap the public generally.
Reminds me of Dial Double Zero by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 11:00 · Score: 0

or Story of a Writer Ray Bradbury.
In defense of the Hague... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 14:28 · Score: 0

I've worked with the Hague before in a capacity that I handled electronic communications on a public forum where I was the sole provider of any and all recordings and transcriptions taking place. I was never asked once to provide extraneous details on people or their identities. Since I do not work for the company anymore that provided the service I would have no problems posting as AC and letting everyone know how concerned they are about watching people. When it comes to these matters they were the nicest and most ambivalent group of people I've ever worked with and more human-oriented than I ever expected. However this device was found I do not believe it belongs to them but rather another group or interested party.
Omroep West story by yusing · 2013-04-21 17:12 · Score: 2

This story (with images) has more details. https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=nl&rurl=translate.google.nl&sl=nl&tl=en&u=http://www.omroepwest.nl/nieuws/19-04-2013/kast-vol-spionageapparatuur-ontdekt-haagse-schilderswijk&usg=ALkJrhgWMC4x3iJVw2X0Fb01okkwoPhllw

--
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
reminds me of another famous line... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-21 17:47 · Score: 0

but one small step at a time

Reminds me of...
"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind"
Mystery solved by Captain_Chaos · 2013-04-21 23:04 · Score: 4, Informative

The box was placed by the police department. See this follow up article (Google Translate), in which the police department (it doesn't specify which one, but probably that of The Hague) states that the box is theirs and it was being used in a large financial crime investigation. Nothing to do with investigating the recruitment of youths to come fight in Syria, as had been speculated. They say they had permission from the public prosecutor to use it.
hearing gunshots by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 01:57 · Score: 0

One doesn't have to be in a terribly seedy part of Los Angeles to hear gunshots from criminal activity (as opposed to, say, a film location shoot). Granted in the tony areas of BelAir, Beverly Hills, or similar, it would be unusual, but certainly in places like North Hollywood, Santa Monica, etc. you'll occasionally hear gunshots. And in areas like the Miracle Mile district along Wilshire Blvd (near the LA County Art Museum and the La Brea Tar Pits), you'll hear them every night.
Hi by yeuvn.sextgem.com · 2013-04-22 02:24 · Score: 0

xem phim sex online
Person of Interest by tmjva · 2013-04-22 04:21 · Score: 1

That is why I like the TV show "Person of Interest", it is so darn accurate in its Minority Reporting!
(I think of those little square boxes with corner handles you can drag with a click every time I see a traffic camera.)

--
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
Isn't it more likely that it's foreign? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 05:19 · Score: 0

Why the comparison to 1984? What evidence is there at all that it was a Dutch government spy cabinet? Why can't it have been the Russians or the French or the Germans or something?
you know what you doing. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-22 06:41 · Score: 0

Move Ziggo for great justice.
Re:Weird by RockDoctor · 2013-04-22 07:18 · Score: 1

This "Schilderswijk" where the cabinet was discovered is a notorious low-income suburb. It's more likely to be native intelligence spying on locals in fear of extremists.
Which is precisely the point that TFA seems to be making in it's last (translated) sentence :

Omroep West [the reporter] reported earlier that would be for the war in Syria. Schilderswijk in the youth recruited
Which may be racial profiling, "postcode prejudice", and all sorts of unpleasant things, but "random/ universal, undirected, completely unfounded surveillance" it is not.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"