Slashdot Mirror
New Surveillance System May Let Cops Use All Of The Cameras (engadget.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: [Computer scientists have created a way of letting law enforcement tap any camera that isn't password protected so they can determine where to send help or how to respond to a crime.] The system, which is just a proof of concept, alarms privacy advocates who worry that prudent surveillance could easily lead to government overreach, or worse, unauthorized use. It relies upon two tools developed independently at Purdue. The Visual Analytics Law Enforcement Toolkit superimposes the rate and location of crimes and the location of police surveillance cameras. CAM2 reveals the location and orientation of public network cameras, like the one outside your apartment. You could do the same thing with a search engine like Shodan, but CAM2 makes the job far easier, which is the scary part. Aggregating all these individual feeds makes it potentially much more invasive. [Purdue limits access to registered users, and the terms of service for CAM2 state "you agree not to use the platform to determine the identity of any specific individuals contained in any video or video stream." A reasonable step to ensure privacy, but difficult to enforce (though the team promises the system will have strict security if it ever goes online). Beyond the specter of universal government surveillance lies the risk of someone hacking the system.] EFF discovered that anyone could access more than 100 "secure" automated license plate readers last year.
And only one individual a Billionaire who runs around in tights fighting crime will use it.
"Trust us, we'll only use it for good(ish) purposes!"
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
no, no, and again no. The Police State doesn't need any help.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
There's a potentially bigger issue here. Despite the terms of service, this seems like a tool that could easily be used by criminals. I think it's likely that stalkers and other creeps would use this to track victims.
..."Person of Interest"
Hopefully it will communicate a little better than phoning someone with some cryptic letters and numbers.
Big Brother isn't coming. It's here.
Why are Universities implementing garbage like this? This is just a webcam search engine mashed together with a police database. Universities are supposed to be doing novel research, not re-implementations of existing ideas.
the terms of service for CAM2 state "you agree not to use the platform to determine the identity of any specific individuals contained in any video or video stream."
Yeah, like anyone actually reads those things. And even if they do, they ignore it.
Remember when Google combined two sets of public data: the white pages, and city maps; so that any stalker could enter your phone number and receive driving directions to your home? Remember what happened? Civilization collapsed. The world ended.
If you don't want your IP camera to become a tool of the man, than stop hanging it out on the public Internet where Shodan and CAM2 can find it. Subnet you freaking network; firewall that crap off.
How about any computer or cellphone that's not passworded? How about any file thats not encrypted? Even better, any vehicle or building door not locked can be entered by the police whenever.
If I grok the summary correctly, they're going to use any cameras without a password to augment their existing capability. That means persons-unknown-to-them can control the output of those cameras, and thus alter the reality (as they see it) of whatever the camera is pointing at.
As an example, let's say there's a passwordless camera pointed at a pawn shop. I decide I want to rob said pawn shop, so I convince the camera owner to delay the feed by 15 minutes (which they do, perhaps by inserting an extra frame every so often for a couple of weeks so no one notices). I then rob the pawn shop, and get 15 minutes head start on the lazy cops sat in the office eating snack and talking about sports and their cheating spouses. The police-owned cameras (and in fact all the others) just see my van drive down the road and turning onto some dirt track where there are no cameras at all. GENIUS!
To MalQuote: "advice from and old tracker: if you want to find someone, use your eyes".
It's funny to me how selective people are with their privacy. Allow the government to have a physical spy network? Bad! Allow Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and Twitter to control, monitor, and exploit every respect of their lives?.... I hear the new iPhone comes out in September! I bet it's shiny!
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The summary says there's a public camera outside my apartment. Really? That's weird, I don't even live in an apartment.
But seriously, it seems a strange thing to say. Why would most apartments have public cameras outside? I'm not even sure what that means? 'Public' as in government funded? (Then wouldn't the police have direct access anyway?) Or are they just meaning publicly accessible, as in webcam available on the Internet? But then, who is installing all these cameras outside everyone's apartments? Seems pretty creepy, or are these outward facing cameras from everyone's apartment? But how many people would install such cameras and make them public (certainly not enough to assume everyone has one outside their apartment)?
I could see maybe high-rise type apartments having a cam at the entrance, but that's a pretty rare type of apartment to live in, and I still would think the feed would be private, not on the internet.
I mean honestly, if there is one thing we know, it is that the police would never violate our right to privacy.
http://www.theguardian.com/com...
I cannot imagine them logging onto random "hot girl" cams to monitor their "safety".
Knock knock... Are you OK miss?
Yes, but how did you know I slipped in the shower?
Unless the owner gave you explicit permission to use the camera.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains-
(C) information from any protected computer;
It is a little more than that. It attempts to login to millions of random cameras and if there is no password then it is added to their database. In addition, it adds in official police cameras that can also be used if they're available in that same zone. Then, it overlays reported crimes in that area. When a police officer specifies a zone they want to watch, it provides a the reports for that area and a list of cameras official or compromised for them to view automatically. Clever actually. Good thing the Stasi isn't around anymore, they'd beat their meat off to this kind of technology vigorously.
The system, which is just a proof of concept, alarms privacy advocates who worry that prudent surveillance could easily lead to unauthorized use, or worse, government overreach.
FTFY
.
The type of surveillance mentioned in TFA extends that isolation, further removing the police from the people and communities they have sworn to protect and serve.
The communities are not a zoo and the police are not the zoo keeper. Yet that is the model that seems to be emphasized by the current trends in law enforcement.
Person Of Interest
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
All of my home cameras are not password protected, but there is no way in hell these computer scientists or even all the best hackers in the world could gain access to them.
They are on a separate network that has NO internet access. It's just the cameras and the NVR. Passwords are for pussies, fully segregated and isolated networks are where the real men live.
before the system is enhanced with on-the-fly password cracking to make the spying more universal? Presumably, (hopefully?), a lot of the passwords in use won't be easily cracked; but these days even a script kiddie could probably whip something up that would guess 25% of them, or more, in a short period of time. And I would guess most of the security on those cams isn't sophisticated enough to turf the attacker after too many wrong attempts, so basic brute-forcing would likely do a pretty good job.
But then again, what am I worried about? Law enforcement, being on the side of right and all, would never try to crack a private security system owned by someone who isn't even under suspicion of having broken the law. Oh, wait...
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
congress critter: we err on the side of caution and dont prosecute most situations where a cop kills someone
beat cop: but, sometimes, we can be really wrong. the consequences of doing this puts us beyond the law.
senator: we just authorized MRAP's and machine guns for you guys and hey while youre at it why not grenade launchers
beat cop: This isnt rambo...how does a tank help us solve a domestic violence issue? most of the stuff we deal with stems from drug abuse and unemployment...cant you guys help fix that?
governor: license plate readers for everyone! also here are all the cameras, look at everything, just let no crime go unpunished or i have to get a real job next year
beat cop: guys...im not arresting someone for tags that are expired in the same month...i dont care about every litterbug...this is just noise. im responding to a bank robbery and have to ignore every unpaid parking ticket that flashes up at me...What do you think cops do?
Good people go to bed earlier.
Interestingly enough CA LE agencies refuse to release their data because it's part of an active investigation, which as the EFF article points out involves al the cars in CA.
Securing the cameras to protect individual privacy is important, but there is a much more important thing at stake here; namely being sure that no public figures actions can be monitored and thus causing people to question what they are doing. Imagine the horrors if the voting public knew that fine upstanding god fearing elected official's car was seen regularly outside a strip bar. Think of the politicians.We need to protect them!
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
With the rulings on accessing open wifi access points that just because it's not password protected it's not implied that you have authorization to use it. Wouldn't a system like this follow that same train of thought and therefore be a felony to implement?
All you have to do is put up pre-recorded feeds that purport to be webcams. Make them think they know something.
It's just a matter of time before they will hook these feeds into an AI (ala "Person of Interest") to process those feeds. Does putting something on the internet without a password make it a public asset? Makes you wonder how long it will take before they will be able to readily access even password protected cameras without a warrant."
Everyday, I walk through the Skyways of Saint Paul. There are cameras every hundred yards or so and at every turn and it's a bit disturbing. Still, the little cretins have managed to put up graffiti in a passageway two days in a row...something new.
Isn't it already legal to connect to IP Cameras that aren't password protected? I don't see this as being any different from connecting to any other website. You're not breaking into anything.
...are belong to us.
Sincerely,
The cops
Looks like ctOS will finally be a reality! I think it's really great that they're so close to Chicago, too--I can't wait until it goes live. After all, #ctOScares.
Why do all the cameras need to be private? Just open them up to everyone.
In my city the police have an agreement with many downtown businesses to monitor their security cameras live. I once toured their "command center" where the walls are lined with dozens of monitors showing video feeds from all over the city. The room is staffed 24/7 365 days a year. One of the workers who monitor the cameras (among other duties) remarked that they were essentially useless. The city never bothered to label them, so no one knew where any of the cameras were located.
Hmm so when someone access a URL that isn't authenticated, the argument it was public did not work for Weev. Remeber when the conviction was over turned it was on a technicality related to venue.
So its not okay for you and I to access resources that are not explicitly advertiezed as for use by the public but your local cops can (or university researchers for that matter)? That is some BS right there.
These guys at Purdue are clearly a public menace and should be locked up!
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
It's funny to me how selective people are with their privacy. Allow the government to have a physical spy network? Bad! Allow Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and Twitter to control, monitor, and exploit every respect of their lives?.... I hear the new iPhone comes out in September! I bet it's shiny!
Lame example. Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and Twitter are not the same as "the government". If you can't see the difference, there's nothing I can do for you.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
You are being watched. The government has a secret system, a machine that spies on you every hour of every day. I know because I built it. I designed the machine to detect acts of terror but it sees everything. Violent crimes involving ordinary people, people like you. Crimes the government considered "irrelevant." They wouldn't act, so I decided I would. But I needed a partner, someone with the skills to intervene. Hunted by the authorities, we work in secret. You'll never find us, but victim or perpetrator, if your number's up... we'll find *you*.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Any camera that observes the public domain shall be in the public domain.
Security camera systems should:
o be wired (ethernet or HD video), not wifi or OTA video
o if data, be connected locally only, via LAN
o if data, not be hooked to "the cloud" ("cloud" is a synonym for "I have no privacy or security... or clue, but I digress")
o if data, never be accessible from outside the LAN
o if data, be behind a dedicated firewall (ideally, multiple firewalls) or on a completely isolated network
o be recording locally (DVR or equivalent) on a physically secure DVR/etc.
o utilize armored, hidden cabling and armored, difficult to access camera mounts
Skip any of this, and you're just inviting unauthorized use of your video feeds.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Unlimited surveillance without explicit permission? What could possibly go wrong with this forward-thinking idea?
No way would they ever use it to go fishing for people to prosecute, that would just never, ever happen. *cough*
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
...the terms of service for CAM2 state "you agree not to use the platform to determine the identity of any specific individuals contained in any video or video stream."
No problem, we'll just convert the video to a series of still frames. Problem solved!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Do research programs not have to have some ethical considerations or scientists not have to have taken ethical training? I see so many things done now just because we have the ability to do it without it looking like anyone even thinking if it was a good idea to attempt it in the first place.
Hey, here's a great idea! If someone doesn't set a password on their security camera then let's just include it in a list and let the police view it. Why not just say that if someone left their door unlocked that the police can come in and look around too? Did any of these researchers actually sit down and think if there was a need, what the privacy implications were to society, what happens in the future when default passwords get added to no passwords, how do you opt out if you need to have no password (say for custom software), etc.
"so they can determine where to send help or how to respond to a crime"
Government is notorious for using words like this when they want the public to accept their new tyranny they are about to impose, then it gets re-worded later.
"The tazer will only be used in situations where a regular firearm would be used". Anybody remember that one?
Recommended addition:
- Encrypt the video transport, even if physical network is wired, armored & hidden as suggested.
Sure, in addition to providing reliability, wiring may provide some incidental reduction in attack surface. But this isn't 1991... CPU is cheap. There is zero reason a modern network should rely on "hardened perimeter"/"gooey, nougat interior" design.
Batman: Beautiful, isn't it?
Lucius Fox: Beautiful... unethical... dangerous. You've turned every cellphone in Gotham into a microphone.
Batman: And a high-frequency generator-receiver.
Lucius Fox: You took my sonar concept and applied it to every phone in the city. With half the city feeding you sonar, you can image all of Gotham. This is *wrong*.
Batman: I've gotta find this man, Lucius.
Lucius Fox: At what cost?
Batman: The database is null-key encrypted. It can only be accessed by one person.
Lucius Fox: This is too much power for one person.
Batman: That's why I gave it to you. Only you can use it.
Lucius Fox: Spying on 30 million people isn't part of my job description.
~Thank you EJ Snowden for understanding the cost
The show Person Of Interest predicted this.