Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BART killing exposes security gap – many train cameras are decoys

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 61 posts

Re: BART killing exposes security gap – many train cameras are decoys

#21

Post by jheriko »

iolothebard wrote: post #19
jheriko wrote: post #17

many cameras /everywhere/ are 'decoys' although often through lack of maintenance and being broken rather than intentionally. as much as they are being a security hole, they are also a cheap deterrent. i'd rather we have them than not. most criminals are smart enough to not want to be seen... despite the misconception that many criminals are stupid, desperate or somehow abnormal people who do not behave like 'the res…

Here's the photos. Just because a few weren't working (or real) doesn't mean they have no footage: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Photos-released-of-suspec...

sure, they mention in the article that they have photos, but the message i got from the article is that having the cameras be real would somehow be of benefit because they help you track down the criminals.

to me, it seems very doubtful that the argument presented has any merit. they are described as a 'security gap' in the title and repeatedly in the article, but the evidence supporting that viewpoint is entirely absent.

(i should clarify that its not a worthless argument, just the example used to present it contains evidence only for the counter-argument as far as i can see)

Re: BART killing exposes security gap – many train cameras are decoys

#22

Post by niels_olson »

This argument leads to the idea that all decoys are security gaps. Yet it's quite the opposite. No matter how many cameras you have, it's not a gap to have decoys. Because decoys are always cheaper than adding cameras, and security is always resource-constrained.

Re: BART killing exposes security gap – many train cameras are decoys

#24

Post by 0xffff2 »

jheriko wrote: post #20
cperciva wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although part of me can't imagine thinking someone is watching 4 cameras on every car on every train at all times. Having video footage of crimes is useful even if nobody watches it until after the fact. There are some security cameras in Vancouver which were installed with the explicit promise that footage would be deleted after 30 days without anyone having seen it unless the police get a warrant in the intervening…

its kind of sad. i'd rather there was a promise that the footage was kept indefinitely, but never watched unless there was a police warrant. that sounds much more useful...

That sounds like the kind of thing that no public agency has the budget for. Even at relatively low resolution, X kb/s * Y cameras * 60 * 60 * 24 adds up to a whole lot of data accumulating every day. Why store all of that data forever when it's vastly unlikely to ever be used after the first 30 days. Even 30 days is probably generous. How often are police not going to have any idea that a crime was committed in the general vicinity of a camera for an entire month, much less two or three or more?

Re: BART killing exposes security gap – many train cameras are decoys

#25

Post by roywiggins »

jheriko wrote: post #18
DanBC wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In england you know they're really cameras because the feed displays on a screen and it flicks through all of them. (I'll take some photos tomorrow.)

really? i'm pretty sure i live there and this is the exception rather than the case. particularly on public transport i have never seen this... although i've seen it in restaurants and shops quite a few times, but certainly much less frequently than i have seen cameras, or things that look like them.

They seem pretty common on London buses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTHFSuPirXY

Re: BART killing exposes security gap – many train cameras are decoys

#26

Post by Terr_ »

Another problem with "dummy cameras" for PUBLIC institutions is that they are basically lying to the taxpayer about what level of security is being funded and provided.

What would you say about a municipality where half the circulating police-cars were secretly fakes "to deter crime", and which would not respond to any emergency?

P.S.: I think as time goes people will be less-accepting of fake-cameras, because they'll assume the operator has a social or legal obligation to provide footage in certain circumstances. For example, to see the license-plates of a hit-and-run in the company parking-lot, or the face of the guy who stole a purse at a restaurant.

Re: BART killing exposes security gap – many train cameras are decoys

#27

Post by wlesieutre »

jheriko wrote: post #20
cperciva wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although part of me can't imagine thinking someone is watching 4 cameras on every car on every train at all times. Having video footage of crimes is useful even if nobody watches it until after the fact. There are some security cameras in Vancouver which were installed with the explicit promise that footage would be deleted after 30 days without anyone having seen it unless the police get a warrant in the intervening…

its kind of sad. i'd rather there was a promise that the footage was kept indefinitely, but never watched unless there was a police warrant. that sounds much more useful...

For one, if the data still exists, you can expect its entire history to eventually get datamined via facial recognition because "think of the children" or "we need to identify people's routines so we can spot outliers" or "the terrorists might have taken a train 12 years ago," and eventually used for god knows what else. Not a fan of that idea.

And two, can you actually trust the transit people to keep a pile of petabytes of footage secure forever? I certainly don't. So we should assume that the person datamining all of those records will actually be an adversary.

Third, who's going to pay for it? Video (or even stills) at a useful resolution take up space.

Re: BART killing exposes security gap – many train cameras are decoys

#29

Post by thrownaway2424 »

Three people were shot in cars on I-80 in Richmond on the same day that this person was shot on a BART train. There are as far as we have been made aware no photos or videos of the event or the perpetrator. Strangely the press is ignoring this other "security gap".

Re: BART killing exposes security gap – many train cameras are decoys

#30

Post by michaelbuckbee »

Terr_ wrote: post #26

Another problem with "dummy cameras" for PUBLIC institutions is that they are basically lying to the taxpayer about what level of security is being funded and provided. What would you say about a municipality where half the circulating police-cars were secretly fakes "to deter crime", and which would not respond to any emergency? P.S.: I think as time goes people will be less-accepting of fake-cameras, because they'l…

This is an actual thing: "ghost units" - empty police cars placed around to stop people from speeding.

http://www.dailycomet.com/article/20130730/ARTICLES/13073995...

Post reply on HN