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.

Comments

But they'll only use it to fight the Joker

[dwillden]

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!"

What?

[110010001000]

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.

Public Data is Public

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Public Data is Public

[bigpat]

That example is a bit complicated as Google did pull the easy access to that reverse phone data and now you have to click through to some shady sites if you want to get the same data.

But maybe that is a good example. I would much rather just have the information available, so that everyone knows they can be tracked and watched in public places than to have just the police or those with some ill intent have the same easy access to the information. Maybe the public can use the information for good purposes or maybe you can change your public behavior to be less vulnerable.

Things like finding out where your kids are going if you are concerned with them hanging out with the wrong people or being abused. Or having citizens able to work together to thwart petty crime that police don't have the resources to police, but the types of crimes that can destroy neighborhoods when left to fester. Or as we have seen recently when cameras are everywhere we can police the police and begin to take some action when some individuals abuse the power entrusted to them.

Re:Public Data is Public

[Anonymous Coward]

London’s Surveillance Fails – Only 1 Crime Solved per 1000 Cameras
By Aaron Saenz, Sep 01, 2009

London has a million of these cameras. They don't seem to be working.

The UK has 4 million CCTV cameras. Some of them even work.

Some people don't mind being watched. Apparently London criminals are among those. According to several major UK news outlets, an internal Metropolitan Police report was released last week that admitted less than 1 crime was solved per year for every 1000 CCTV cameras in London. This comes as a major blow to the UK police who spent £500 million between 1996 and 2006 installing 4 million cameras nationwide, with 1 million in London alone. Despite claims that each citizen might be seen on 300 cameras a day, perhaps half of all CCTV camera footage is unsuitable to convict criminals in court. The British public is crying foul, the police force is scrambling to access the problem, and everyone is watching to see what the world's most recorded country is going to do next.

Whether you like or not, digital observation is only going to get more prevalent in the future. We have faster, cheaper, and more plentiful recording devices everywhere and attached to everything. You're already recorded many times a day by private cameras, and that's only going to get more invasive when implants, facial recognition software, and 3D scanning get going. What's happening in London, both the wide spread public use of CCTV and the complications from it, is a precursor to what the rest of the world can expect.

The failure of Britain's massive surveillance system highlights a truth of public monitoring: more isn't always better. Cameras are not always at the correct angle or resolution to provide meaningful identification. And everyone seems to know that. There has been little evidence of CCTV serving as a deterrent to crime in London. A man was beaten in front of a pub in full view of a camera. His assailants were convicted based on eye witness testimony because the recording wasn't clear enough to identify them. In fact, besides parking lots, few locations seem to have lower crime rates thanks to the cameras dotted around the city.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the current British system is that it is passive. Few circuits are monitored by a living person, so crimes committed in front of cameras aren't noticed until long after they occur. Switching to an active system would greatly improve the efficacy of the observation. As we've mentioned before, there is a wide range of surveillance systems that can recognize actions and intents, including Europe's own Humabio. An active computer monitor would be able to alert police as a crime was taking place. In some cases, computers would even be able to detect individuals who's faces, gaits, or posture indicated hostile intent. Crimes could actually be prevented from happening.

Alternatively, connections to CCTV cameras could be available via wireless interface. Police officers could use smart phones to monitor footage in real time. Heck, depending on their preference for privacy, the UK could allow anyone to log on to cameras in this fashion. Sort of a nationwide neighborhood watch. It's scary, but entirely possible with current technology.

In fact, a lot of things are scary but possible with current technology. Cameras are getting smaller, cheaper, and more versatile. Security checks are leaning towards non-invasive brain scans, and facial recognition linked to photo IDs. As Britain's willingness to go under the lens shows, the concept of privacy is evolving with technology. I'm sure many are worried that we may soon face a world where any step you take outside your home could be monitored.

Actually, the funny thing is, this has already happened. Speeding tickets are already dolled out by cameras, ATMs record you, key words spoken on cell phones may trigger federal surveillance, and priva

Fakes

[coofercat]

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".

Why would anyone care?

[pablo_max]

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?

Re:Two words - Big Brother

[Dins]

Except the surveillance possible today is way worse than that in the book 1984.

Fundamental problem

[QuietLagoon]

A significant problem with law enforcement nowadays is that the "policeman on the beat" is no longer "on the beat. She or he is isolated from the community being served and protected by the police.

.
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.

Re:Just no

[houstonbofh]

So don't help them. Set a damn password!

Re:Two words - Big Brother

[houstonbofh]

"Big Brother" was passed a long time ago, and he is jealous as fuck!

Re:why stop there

[bickerdyke]

Any vehicle or building door not locked can be entered by anybody whenever. In fact, you're usually lucky if it's the police.

The internet is not the physical world where big signs and storefronts would help you to see if an unlocked door leads into a public bar or lounge and is intentionally unlocked or into someones living room and is not locked unintentionally.

There is no mandatory directory to register public services on the internet, so any service offered without access restriction could be considered public in good faith.

Re:How is this not a CFAA violation?

[DarkOx]

Well this argument did not work for Weev. He ultimately got the conviction overturned on an unrelated technicality but AT&T did not protect the URLs he accessed and the prosecutor and court system still came down on him.

If you accept the precedent of the first trial than yes unless there is a statement some place that specifically identifies a www resource as "for use by the public" you can't legally access it without some kind of individual permission. Its a stupid vague law to begin with and the case would be a silly precedent but none the less. Until someone else tries it in court that is about what we have to go on.

The thing is no prosecutor will charge you for accessing slashdot.

Also...

[pr0t0]

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*.

Re:Two words - Big Brother

[fyngyrz]

Orwell was an optimist.

Some tips from my security experience

[fyngyrz]

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.

Re:why stop there

[fyngyrz]

Locks are for honest people.

"Honest" does not include law enforcement.