Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

65% of Washington DC's Outdoor Surveillance Cameras Infiltrated by Romanian Hackers (thehill.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the I'll-be-seeing-you dept.

An anonymous reader quotes The Hill: Two Romanian hackers stand accused of hacking more than 100 outdoor police security cameras in the D.C. area during the days leading up to President Trump's inauguration, according to a court document obtained by CNN. According to an affidavit from Secret Service agent James Graham, Mihai Alexandru Isvanca and Eveline Cismaru are accused of hacking and disabling 123 out of 187 of the city's cameras between Jan. 12 and Jan. 15... Isvanca and Cismaru are also accused in the affidavit of spreading ransomware.
In a possibly-related story, the Washington Post reports: Five Romanian hackers were arrested over the past week as part of an international investigation into computer ransomware, officials in the United States and Europe said Wednesday. In six houses across Romania, law enforcement operatives from Romania, Britain, the United States and the Netherlands seized hard drives, laptops, external storage devices and documents related to malicious software called CTB-Locker or Critroini.

85 comments

  1. As long as they're not Russian it's okay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Putin probably doesn't control them.

    1. Re:As long as they're not Russian it's okay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference being: Putin shields russian hackers from prosecution when they hack other countries & then claims that "Hey, it's not government sanctioned hacking".

      Just another one of his lies...

  2. Who cares by nospam007 · · Score: 0

    Where I live, all the supermarket entries are swamped by aggressive Roma beggars who are not satisfied with my picture.

    1. Re: Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not Roma. They are rrRoma

    2. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roma /= Romanian!

    3. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      (posting anonymously because SJW shit)
      Roma people are an ethnicity which is not endemic to Romania, although many of them are of Romanian nationality.
      Less than 3 decades ago, when Roma people were marginalized in Romania, the Western Europe countries jumped and gave Romania stern warnings, so Romania said "fine, they're free to do whatever they want". So they spread out to the western countries, doing the same things they had been doing in Romania (for which they were marginalized in the first place). And NOW you want them sent back to Romania? You can have them and keep them close, 'cause that's what you wanted 25 years ago.

      Signed: a Romanian non-gypsy dude who had been beaten by gypsies, had his house robbed by gypsies and his girlfriend sexually assaulted by gypsies back in 1999. Sorry if I don't love them.

    4. Re:Who cares by gDLL · · Score: -1

      Yep, i remember some French newspapers from around that period which were like "omg minority rights....poor gypsies discriminated in the east." mod parent up.

    5. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's official EU policy to make the Roma an integral part of every EU country:

      http://ec.europa.eu/justice/di...

    6. Re:Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep your anonymous safety, because your racist attitude is indeed deplorable. Guess what? Crime is much more prevalent in marginalized groups in society. Also, the people who get robbed, beaten or sexually assaulted by non-gypsies somehow don't develop the opinion that it's the "non-gypsiness" that's to blame.

  3. And what for? by AlanObject · · Score: 1

    It sounds like a particular model camera the city was using had an exploit. But...

    Why did they bother? I can't think of what they had to gain unless they were setting up a blanket for some other activity that would be caught by those cameras. But that didn't happen but they are going to pay a pretty heavy price for it.

    So was it just for the lulz? (I know that is a dated term but I can't think of a better word right now.)

    1. Re:And what for? by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Why did they bother?

      Could be practice in a real-world scenario. These cameras might not offer anything of particular value, but it might help the hackers get some experience in these kinds of things for cases where the cameras might offer much juicier information.

      Either that or they're just bored hackers and hacking things is what they do. They compromise a system because it's there.

    2. Re:And what for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did they bother?

      Could be practice in a real-world scenario. These cameras might not offer anything of particular value, but it might help the hackers get some experience in these kinds of things for cases where the cameras might offer much juicier information.

      Either that or they're just bored hackers and hacking things is what they do. They compromise a system because it's there.

      Or... they just didn't know what they were hacking, just spreading the warez.

      You know, an ip is an ip is an ip. Until you get in, you have no idea what it is.

    3. Re:And what for? by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      It sounds like a particular model camera the city was using had an exploit. But...

      Why did they bother? I can't think of what they had to gain unless they were setting up a blanket for some other activity that would be caught by those cameras. But that didn't happen but they are going to pay a pretty heavy price for it.

      So was it just for the lulz? (I know that is a dated term but I can't think of a better word right now.)

      If they catch pics of various congress people with other women / men that could be valuable. Blanket surveillance would nab lots of interesting finds for such an unethical group.

    4. Re:And what for? by greenwow · · Score: 1

      Probably doing it for Putin so he could have his Rump puppet do his bidding and spy on Americans. Now that we are Rump-ruled, Rump is spying on us for his master Putin. That's how things be.

    5. Re:And what for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking for the best spots to go begging and selling The Big Issue.

    6. Re:And what for? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Why did they bother?

      Video surveillance of a wide area around the US Capitol Washington, D.C. area would likely be considered very valuable to foreign intelligence services and terrorist organizations.

      It would enable the gathering of a great deal of intelligence. See who is having little 'walk & talks' with whom (possibly reconstructing what was said in some instances), track and determine patrol schedules of police and plain-clothes security service personnel, determine patterns of movement/travel for VIPs, and more.

      No, they had a potential goldmine.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    7. Re:And what for? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Depends on the part of the USA. Build a vast database of US workers with a security clearance who work at a local camp, fort, base, port, mil factory?
      Facial recognition and license plates in and out of any US secure site. Same for local city investigators, police, federal investigators, federal state task force members.
      No undercover operation could remain a secret or start without been in a database.
      A real time database of most US police, federal workers, investigators, informants as they go to work?
      Note what they do all day, enjoy and then blackmail/seduce/bribe the average US workers/police with a security clearance?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    8. Re:And what for? by sjames · · Score: 1

      In other words, the "real problem" is that the wrong unethical bastards got control of the Panopticon.

      The only way to make that problem go away is to take the cameras down.

    9. Re:And what for? by AlanObject · · Score: 1

      No, they had a potential goldmine.

      Well if that was what they were after it was pretty stupid to allow the cameras go offline. For their goldmine to be viable they would tap the video and do as much as they could to make sure they weren't detected. Instead, they crashed the devices forcing the owners to find out what was wrong.

  4. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I hope it will be harder for the DC government/police to get convictions against anti-Trump demonstrators. Anyone who shuts down surveillance systems does humanity a service.

  5. News Flash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IoT devices are unsecure - details at 11.

    1. Re:News Flash! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      I assume the DC police department is smarter than to use consumer IoT devices for spying on the public. Then again, we're talking about cops, who generally aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. (Even management).

      Thankfully -- without stupid, technically ignorant cops, there would be even less freedom left on Earth.

    2. Re:News Flash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the DC government has always been a shining beacon of excellence in the past. /s

    3. Re:News Flash! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      IoT devices are unsecure - details at 11.

      Is that port 11? UDP or TCP?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  6. Romanian fake news! by mspohr · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ah HA!
    So that's why the lamestream fake news media reported such small numbers of people at the Trump Inauguration!
    There were really millions more but the Romanians erased them from the cameras.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  7. Let the racist attacks begin ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, in the UK the Romanians have been demonised and used as a main reason to convince people to vote for Brexit.
    Now it seems that in the USA the scapegoating is in full swing and, surprise, surprise, the Romanians are targeted as well.
    Probably Putin frowned at the whole bruhaha about the Russian interference in the elections, so the brave Secret Service agents need a more convenient scapegoat, prefferably one wihout the Russian military behind it.

    1. Re: Let the racist attacks begin ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait - you're saying the Russian military is behind the Democrat party? No fucking way! Everyone knows the Democrats are bought & paid for by the Chinese.

  8. Misdirection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And 100% by the In Ess Eh.

  9. Romulans by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    When I first read the headline, I thought it said Romulan. Like Star Trek aliens were taking over.

    1. Re:Romulans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sshhhh! we're not supposed to speak about this

  10. More scapegoating ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the UK the Romanians were the main target when the politicians stoked the racist fires to get votes for Brexit.
    Now in the USA they are targeted as well, probably because this will not upset Putin ?

  11. Proving that the Internet ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... is "free." because you don't have to pay to use the shit attached to it.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  12. The solution is to open them up by Kohath · · Score: 1

    Police camera video should be viewable by the public or the cameras should be removed. The public should have exactly the same access as the police to this video.

    1. Re:The solution is to open them up by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      Police camera video should be viewable by the public or the cameras should be removed. The public should have exactly the same access as the police to this video.

      Then crime might actually get solved. Or vigilante violence could solve it. I'm always amused at certain groups that go to great lengths to mark themselves. If the general population ever really wants to solve MS13 as an example just send a mob door to door. Have the gang tatoos and you get shot. It's admittedly extreme but it would fix the problem in a single day.

    2. Re:The solution is to open them up by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

      Police camera video should be viewable by the public or the cameras should be removed. The public should have exactly the same access as the police to this video.

      No. I don't want everything I do in public subject to showing up on Facebook et al. I'd go along with requiring the cops to make it available for viewing at a station or other facility, but with no copying allowed, absent a court order.

    3. Re:The solution is to open them up by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I'd go along with requiring the cops to make it available for viewing at a station or other facility, but with no copying allowed, absent a court order.

      Then that should be the only access the police get.

    4. Re:The solution is to open them up by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you think what happened when the public tried to identify the Boston Bombers from surveillance footage is a good thing? It basically became a modern-day Salem Witch Hunt. While police corruption is certainly possible and needs to be rooted out, we've given police the task of criminal investigations precisely because we can then train a handful of investigators of these fallacies and how to avoid them, instead of having to train the entire public. It's a protective mechanism we've developed to prevent witch hunts. Opening up all cameras to the public short-circuits that protection.

      Unfortunately, our basic psychology makes us easily fall for things which sound right but are wrong. Investigators reviewing surveillance video footage have at least some training to avoid falling for the most common of those fallacies when identifying a suspect. If you throw a bunch of random untrained people from the public into that role, they'll usually end up falling for groupthink and confirmation bias leading them to the wrong conclusion. (Releasing the footage after the investigation is done via a court order or FOIA can still be done.)

    5. Re:The solution is to open them up by Kohath · · Score: 2, Informative

      So you think what happened when ... is a good thing?

      Spare us this ridiculous argument please.

      People who are against alcohol prohibition aren't in favor of drunk drivers killing babies in car accidents, much less a specific baby being killed in a specific accident.

      See "Appeal to Emotion" in the list of fallacies you linked to.

      While police corruption is certainly possible and needs to be rooted out, we've given police the task of criminal investigations precisely because we can then train a handful of investigators of these fallacies and how to avoid them

      Police are ordinary citizens like everyone else. They should be treated like ordinary citizens. "Police corruption" isn't the big problem. The big problem is that the police think they're a force apart from and above the people. That attitude has led to most of the problems the police have had in the past 10 years.

    6. Re:The solution is to open them up by Kohath · · Score: 1

      No. I don't want everything I do in public subject to showing up on Facebook et al.

      Also, you're being naive and short-sighted here. There are going to be cameras everywhere, all the time. Every store, every house, every car. You can wish against it, but it's going to happen anyway. Automatic face recognition is going to get better and cheaper. Stuff you do in public will be knowable to the public. Don't tell yourself otherwise.

    7. Re:The solution is to open them up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who are against alcohol prohibition aren't in favor of drunk drivers killing babies in car accidents, much less a specific baby being killed in a specific accident.

      It is a category error to compare full public access to surveillance video feeds to the end of prohibition. People do not like to drive drunk, they do it because they are drunk and unable to make good choices. However, not only do people like to 'solve' mysteries for the social credit, people fucking love to scapegoat. If you think otherwise, you've never been on the internet.

      Instead of this bullshit David Brinesque zero-privacy will cure the world's ills fallacy, we should concentrate on limiting the potential for abuse in the first place - well-engineered security on the cameras by doing things like encrypt at the source, like on the CCD itself, and keeping the decryption keys in the hands of a third party that only makes them available in response to a warrant.

    8. Re:The solution is to open them up by Kohath · · Score: 1

      It is a category error to compare full public access to surveillance video feeds to the end of prohibition.

      Perhaps, but that's not what I was doing. I was using an example to point out how this argument is ridiculous:

      Because you favor [some easing of a restriction on something] you must think [some specific tragedy] "is a good thing".

      Instead of this bullshit David Brinesque zero-privacy will cure the world's ills fallacy

      No one claimed any cure of all ills.

      (Also, who? Cultural references don't work any more. Instead of increasing understanding, they're just a distraction because 50% of the audience has no idea WTF you're talking about.)

      ...well-engineered security on the cameras by doing things like encrypt at the source, like on the CCD itself, and keeping the decryption keys in the hands of a third party that only makes them available in response to a warrant.

      Who has the incentive to create that solution?

    9. Re:The solution is to open them up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps, but that's not what I was doing. I was using an example to point out how this argument is ridiculous:

      Then pick an example that applies. All you ended up doing is making an argument based on semantics but devoid of meaning. That's not persuasive, its shallow.

      Who has the incentive to create that solution?

      The people. That is why we have a representative government.

      (Also, who? Cultural references don't work any more.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society
      Anybody who is unaware of that essay and yet thinks they are an informed commenter on the topic is not.

    10. Re:The solution is to open them up by gtall · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's have armed civilians wandering around taking pot shots at people they think are gangbangers. So if a few children get whacked in the cross fire or nailed by Bubba who swore they were pulling a gun on him. Of course this is not all that different from what currently goes on with the gun nuts.

    11. Re:The solution is to open them up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cops are pretty easy to con. Even if they are "trained investigators". That's why the final word on guilt or innocence is placed in the hands of 12 jurors. Unless the cops know that they are operating on their own confirmation bias. Then the poor suspect usually ends up getting shot before the courts can have their turn.

    12. Re:The solution is to open them up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is so, so true. police are out of control

    13. Re:The solution is to open them up by Kohath · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society
      Anybody who is unaware of that essay and yet thinks they are an informed commenter on the topic is not.

      That's precious. Let's all sip our drinks with our pinkys extended and bemoan the benighted ignorance of the proles.

    14. Re:The solution is to open them up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh, so you are one of those guys. Completely unable to participate in an informed conversation, but so full of grievance and resentment that he's willing to make that the issue. Spare us.

    15. Re:The solution is to open them up by Kohath · · Score: 1

      No, just having a little fun with someone pretentious.

    16. Re: The solution is to open them up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. It's way better to have armed gubmint thugs shooting innocent people while letting gangbangers run wild.

    17. Re: The solution is to open them up by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Or decent upstanding patriots could just rip the cameras off their poles and smash them with bats, thereby restoring a small degree of freedom to the area.

      Oh, I know, I know. But muh private property! But muh rule of lawyers!

    18. Re:The solution is to open them up by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      It's not pretentious, if you've been on Slashdot as long as your UID implies, you ought to be very well versed with David Brin and his nutty ideas. Someone brings it up as a full article almost as much as they do RMS's Right To Read.

      And since when was quoting one of the leading thinkers in the topic of privacy vs no privacy pretentious anyway? Sometimes when confronted with a name or idea you haven't heard before, just look it up. What's wrong with that? It's the Internet, and it's information that is totally relevant to the discussion.

    19. Re: The solution is to open them up by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Oh, I know, I know. But muh private property! But muh rule of lawyers!

      Sure, you mock it, but it is someone's property, and it costs money to put up and money to replace. Of course you'll get fined. It's not like the city had a referendum and the voters said "no cameras!" and they put them up otherwise.

    20. Re: The solution is to open them up by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Lick those boots!

  13. And... by Nutria · · Score: 1

    who's gonna get convicted for not:

    1. validating that they're securable, and
    2. then securing them?

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Convicted? Don't you mean a big raise and a fat bonus? 'Cause that's the way it's going to work out.

  14. Romania is far away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a romanian and when i read this it make me laugh.at least the camera weren't stolen by some bros from Prince County

  15. Whack a mole ... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    A few Romanians arrested, but there will be plenty more to replace them as long as the manufacturers and vendors care little about security. The only way of doing that is to make the local hight street store liable - they will then stop selling you the cheapest that they can buy; so then all that you will have to worry about are state sponsored crackers who deliberately place back doors in these things.

  16. and even if they are.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    All we really want to know is what hit the Pentagon on 9/11

    Maybe they managed to get a peek at a stray plane traveling 50 feet above the ground? Nobody else did

    1. Re:and even if they are.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bull shit.
      http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/BlinkedPentagonPlane.html

      Grow up little boy and move out of Mommies basement.

    2. Re: and even if they are.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not there OP, but that shared link is ridiculous.

      A 757 flies low over one of the most populated parts of the country and that's all you've got?

      Please. No plane hit the Pentagon

    3. Re: and even if they are.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently I need to grow up too. Still haven't seen a single shred of evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon. Not to mention that the details come from people who lie for a living.

    4. Re:and even if they are.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were security cameras pointed at this area and even now only 3 very bad pictures have ever been released and this makes perfect sense to you?
      So do you believe the official story that commercial airliner vaporized and what fucking bad luck it hit in the spot where the auditing of the Pentagon was being done.or is it just a conspiracy that Donald Rumsfeld said a couple trillion dollars went missing?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aljgYENg--Y

      I did not post the previous comment you replied to but why does everyone you disagree live in a fucking basement fuck you stick your head back in the sand and always believe your government cause they never lie you stupid american.
      The level of corruption in america exist cause people like you even facts will not get you to pull your fucking head out of the sand.

    5. Re:and even if they are.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The plane that hit the Pentagon was witnessed by the commuters on the highway that passes by the Pentagon. There were 10 signed and submitted affidavits from 10 of these commuters attesting to what they witnessed. The plane was also identified by the air traffic control radar until it crashed into towards the Pentagon. The NTBS processed the crash site and recovered, among other things, the planes black box. But it's cool if you want to look like a total ass wipe living in a fantasy world.

    6. Re: and even if they are.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No airplane wreckage. No video. No photos of a 757 coming down. Give me a break. You sir, are the mom's basement dweller. Intelligent people know bs when it's served to them.

    7. Re: and even if they are.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Signed and submitted? Oh well that's proof right there. Case closed!

      What's the weather like in Langley today AC? Lol

    8. Re: and even if they are.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So no photos of a 757 crashing into Washington DC?

      That seems crazy.

    9. Re: and even if they are.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's OK. I haven't seen a single shred of evidence that planes hit the WTC, all of the videos of the said event were faked by ILM.

    10. Re: and even if they are.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The WT' had tens of thousands of photographs, thousands of deaths, millions of eyewitnesses, thousands of videos.

      The two are not even remotely comparable.

    11. Re: and even if they are.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is simply no evidence to support the claim that any passenger aircraft ever crashed into the Pentagon. The available evidence suggests that it never happened. The onus it proof lies on those making extraordinary, unsupported claims.

    12. Re: and even if they are.... by silverdirk · · Score: 1

      I saw it on tv that same day. They had news updates on it for the next dozen hours about how the roof was still on fire because of layered new construction overtop old construction, and continued drama over whether the defense officials would need to evacuate. You want to tell me that the tv footage was faked? Burden of proof is on you. Go conspiracy youself elsewhere.

      --
      Mark of the Coder fades from you. You perform Opening on World of Warcraft. Warcraft crits GPA for 4. GPA dies.
    13. Re: and even if they are.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK prick hw about these:
      http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm
      http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/
      https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/
      http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

      Get out of the basement, go to school, learn how to think and stop listening too the little voices in your head. Please tget back on your meds.

    14. Re: and even if they are.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eye witness accounts:
      http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html

    15. Re: and even if they are.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. That's not what airplane wreckage looks like. Not even close. Go to Google images and look at any wreckage from any crash. There are seats, luggage, etc.

      And that hole in the building how big is that? Just no.

    16. Re: and even if they are.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh hoh! There's that conspiracy word.

      As if that has some bearing on the discussion. The US government "conspires" all the time. Are you unaware of that?

      Still think those WMD's are going to turn up in Iraq? (hint: No, that was a conspiracy to manufacture a cassus belli)

      Got any other tricks to win an argument without arguing?

    17. Re: and even if they are.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah more importantly, how is it possible that the most surveiled building in the world didn't have video of a gigantic passenger plane making a bee line for it? Something is wrong here.

    18. Re: and even if they are.... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Signed and submitted? Oh well that's proof right there. Case closed!

      What's the weather like in Langley today AC? Lol

      Of course. Conspiracy theorists never want to do the actual work themselves, and they will never, ever let evidence to the contrary dissuade them of their pet theories that they want to be true so very badly.

      "A 757 wasn't spotted by any civilians?"
      "Actually plenty of people saw it, and you can look up their affidavits."
      "Signed and submitted? Lol."

      Nothing would satisfy you short of rooting around in the wreckage directly after the crash, and I'm sure you'd find some bullshit excuse for how plane parts were planted or some other nonsense.

    19. Re: and even if they are.... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Oh hoh! There's that conspiracy word.

      Yes, that's right. The conspiracy word. We have plenty of evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon, and you have absolutely no evidence that it did not.
      The plane was hijacked. We know this as a statement of fact.
      The plane was tracked heading in that direction. We also know that as a statement of fact.
      For the "missile/bomb" theory, the plane would have to have disappeared... completely, without a trace. The commuters who saw the plane would have had to all have been Pentagon/Military/whatever plants, or bought testimony. Some group would have had to plant the explosives or fire the missile. All of that would have had to have come from somewhere, and you'd also have to then plant all the evidence that was inside the Pentagon ruins. And all this for what purpose?

      We have a photo of the plane right outside the Pentagon. Why no footage? Because when a plane is traveling 500 mph, a 24 fps camera is only going to get a frame or two before impact. This was 2001, not 2017. People didn't have dashcams, it was a good 7 years before the release of the smartphone gave most people quick available cameras on their body at any time.

      You want to believe otherwise, so you concoct a grand plan that contradicts available evidence and was somehow kept secret despite the ridiculous amount of work that hard to be involved to pull off something so huge.

  17. More details about the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a more detailed article in the submission queue. Maybe next time the mod can pick the better story, not an article with 3 paragraphs https://slashdot.org/submission/7734351/hackers-used-washingtons-cctv-system-to-distribute-ransomware

  18. Bummer, Romania is EU member, no Putin there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    :)

  19. Thanks for the reminder! by slashdotiscorrupt · · Score: 1

    The entire west is ruled by one world government and the borders only exist to soothe people and stop them from a reactionary backlash against globalism.

    --
    My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
  20. "Hacking" by suss · · Score: 1

    Does it still count as hacking if the camera comes preloaded with a telnet backdoor with login admin:123456 and publishes its IP address to several chinese dyndns servers as soon as you plug it into the internet?

    1. Re:"Hacking" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      camera comes preloaded with a telnet backdoor with login admin:123456

      you have no clue. on all those cameras the password for 'admin' is 'admin', not '123456'.

    2. Re:"Hacking" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO.
      Clearly the purchase/acquisition process was grossly negligent.
      IT Security were not consulted
      PEN tests not performed
      Actionable CERT advisories not performed or acted upon in a timely manner

      Its like dropping $1 notes - the average Clapham junction test is that the money will not be turned in. Unsecured wireless links and default passwords mean you have employed morons, and management was/is totally deficient, now and going forward.

      GECT r

  21. yay! by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who thinks this is super awesome? The surveillance state is incompatible with a free society and deeply unamerican. All failures for the Stasi are wins for the American people.

  22. IOT by WorBlux · · Score: 1

    The "S: if for security. ;)