Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Utility Box Exposed As Spy Cabinet In the Netherlands

Posted by timothy on 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?"

30 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. I could be wrong but.... by phantomfive · · 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 Roderic9 · · 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.

    2. Re:I could be wrong but.... by guttentag · · 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.

    3. Re:I could be wrong but.... by rudy_wayne · · 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.

    4. Re:I could be wrong but.... by hawguy · · 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.

    5. Re:I could be wrong but.... by iggymanz · · 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

    6. Re:I could be wrong but.... by icebraining · · 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
    7. Re:I could be wrong but.... by ColdWetDog · · 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!
    8. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Doctor+Device · · 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.
    9. Re:I could be wrong but.... by MysteriousPreacher · · 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
    10. Re:I could be wrong but.... by iggymanz · · 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.

    11. Re:I could be wrong but.... by SternisheFan · · 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

    12. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Plumpaquatsch · · 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.
    13. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's only because the plutonium necessary to power the miniaturized camera required a lot of shielding.

    14. Re:I could be wrong but.... by Opportunist · · 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.
    15. Re:I could be wrong but.... by WGFCrafty · · 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.

      .

    16. Re:I could be wrong but.... by WGFCrafty · · 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.

  2. Re:Weird by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  3. pictures of inside by xatr0z · · 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 Opportunist · · 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.
  4. Quis Custodiot Ipsos Custodes by Antique+Geekmeister · · 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.

  5. Re:Lazy Intelligence? by guttentag · · 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.

  6. Re:Weird by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · 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
  7. Re:My question is... by marcovje · · 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.

  8. police observation, not espionage by sciencewatcher · · 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 santax · · 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.

    2. Re:police observation, not espionage by chihowa · · 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.
  9. Re:Lazy Intelligence? by fondacio · · 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.

  10. Re:You mean... by Kaenneth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    His usage was perfectly cromulent.

  11. Mystery solved by Captain_Chaos · · 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.