Live data from Hacker News

Redditor finds unsecured surveillance cameras seemingly placed by US government

old.reddit.com

121–130 of 203 posts

Re: Redditor finds unsecured surveillance cameras seemingly placed by US government

#121
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think people have internalized the fact that the US gov has surveillance drones in holding patterns over most US metropolitan areas. Every time I've seen someone poke around one of those persistence ADSB/radar maps, they have gone through the stages of discovery: "What are those circles?" "Surveillance drones." "Haha, no, really, what are they? Planes circling the airport?" "No, that (points to thin circle) i…

I don't think people really think about it. Another example: most cities have systems that can pinpoint a gunshot to a block radius anywhere in the city so that police can respond quickly.

Oakland has shotspotter and my understanding is that it's been considered a failure

Re: Redditor finds unsecured surveillance cameras seemingly placed by US government

#122
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think people have internalized the fact that the US gov has surveillance drones in holding patterns over most US metropolitan areas. Every time I've seen someone poke around one of those persistence ADSB/radar maps, they have gone through the stages of discovery: "What are those circles?" "Surveillance drones." "Haha, no, really, what are they? Planes circling the airport?" "No, that (points to thin circle) i…

I don't think people really think about it. Another example: most cities have systems that can pinpoint a gunshot to a block radius anywhere in the city so that police can respond quickly.

There is a very big difference between a system that can localize gunshot sounds and surveillance drones.

Assuming, of course, that the gunshot detectors are in fact special gunshot detectors and not a giant array of normal microphones with some algorithms applied to them.

Re: Redditor finds unsecured surveillance cameras seemingly placed by US government

#123
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think people really think about it. Another example: most cities have systems that can pinpoint a gunshot to a block radius anywhere in the city so that police can respond quickly.

There is a very big difference between a system that can localize gunshot sounds and surveillance drones. Assuming, of course, that the gunshot detectors are in fact special gunshot detectors and not a giant array of normal microphones with some algorithms applied to them.

> Assuming, of course, that the gunshot detectors are in fact special gunshot detectors and not a giant array of normal microphones with some algorithms applied to them.

Why is your statement based at all on that assumption?

I don't see what makes surveillance drones necessarily worse than human cops flying helicopters overhead with cameras (which I know for a fact occurs in my city). What makes the "drone" part problematic?

Re: Redditor finds unsecured surveillance cameras seemingly placed by US government

#124
post #121
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think people really think about it. Another example: most cities have systems that can pinpoint a gunshot to a block radius anywhere in the city so that police can respond quickly.

Oakland has shotspotter and my understanding is that it's been considered a failure

Really? Why?

In DC, I think it's been pretty successful because lots of gunshots do not result in police calls.

Re: Redditor finds unsecured surveillance cameras seemingly placed by US government

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want it to be a conspiracy. No one is intended to see the inside of the box and thus the website unless the box is compromised. So when an unauthorized person sees it and goes to that website, they see it as a spammy forgotten domain, but it's actually trying to install surveillance software to see who you are and later why you've been poking around in a box they never intended you to poke around in. (This of cours…

That's pretty clever. If I had to bet money though, I'd assume something more mundane, like they are actually dumb enough to put a name and email on one of those. Do we have any reason to think that the person posting this is not the FBI themselves? Or some other foreign surveillance types?

this reminds me of finfisher and payloaded media files used to drop the spyware.

thus mass surveilance, or mass botnet

Re: Redditor finds unsecured surveillance cameras seemingly placed by US government

#126
A lot of statements and theories about these camera's from all sorts of directions, but they're just pole cams. LEA's have been using pole cams since before I was born (I'm 34). I worked in law enforcement as an analyst and spent some time staring at pole cams that were setup to surveil known drug dealers or criminal gang members. To do one correctly (i.e. legally) you typically need a warrant or a court order, but it can vary I guess based on jurisdiction. They're often deployed as an alternative to human surveillance efforts. They're called pole cams because, well, they get thrown up on telephone poles usually, to take advantage of the power source and ease of view. The surprising part of this isn't the cameras, its the fact that these are wide open on the internet. But honestly police are not IT people, and they often have officers or agents that work specifically as "surveillance techs" who are not IT people either.

I imagine this will draw a ton of ire about privacy and such, and I generally agree, but from my limited experience with them, they aren't wide spread, they're typically temporary, and they're usually purged except for the parts that are relevant to the investigation. These cams appear to be the exception, not the norm. If I saw a cam was sitting on an openly accessible server like this I would have filed a complaint with the agency and the OAG. I don't live in a state where any of the ones listed on Reddit are in, but I would encourage people who do live in a state with one of these cams to notify your OAG about it.

Re: Redditor finds unsecured surveillance cameras seemingly placed by US government

#127
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't really work that way. The entirety of the situation is taken into account. What matters is what you knew, what you should have known, what you could be expected to know, what you were told, what you observed, what you were thinking, what actions you took, and why you did it, etc.... and how all of these things line up with your local laws which will vary to a degree. If you walked into the place confused b…

Sure, that's what's important after-the-fact if someone's getting mad at you. But that's very murky territory—the kind individuals constantly wander into because of conflicting motivations, but which corporations tend to stay well clear of. Let's instead talk about legal liability , and how corporations seek to discharge it in their delivery of products/services. If I'm programming a political auto-dialer, there are…

Third parties do not typically have legal liability for how their customers use their products, but this a murky area that I am sure has tons of edge cases and exceptions depending on product, industry, and local regulations.

To your example: You can buy drones today that will follow people around. The person who uses it is generally responsible for using it to film legally.

Re: Redditor finds unsecured surveillance cameras seemingly placed by US government

#129
post #20

Where is the conspiracy? I thought the US government had been surveiling its cities via aerial technology. Is the conspiracy that these are unsecured?

What do you mean by "conspiracy"? I'm not trying to be funny here, I think it's worth examining what precisely you mean by that word when you use it. It's a word with a specific meaning that is frequently abused in wishy-washy ways, often used to describe loony beliefs not grounded in reality, or beliefs that run contrary to the official narrative.

If the official narrative is that we aren't being constantly surveilled, then this submission pales in comparison to what should be on the front page.

But I don't think that is the official narrative, per se.

Re: Redditor finds unsecured surveillance cameras seemingly placed by US government

#130
post #103
post #35

Anybody else afraid to click some of the links in that post until you hear about legality of accessing (and controlling!) a DEA camera that's likely part of an active investigation?

I'm having a chuckle from comments on Reddit: “It's an IPv4 address pointing directly to the camera, not so sure that there are any logs.” Wonder how many of the VPN-employing folks in fact use something like NordVPN and pay for it with their credit card.

This is amusing to read because they largely/all seem to be AT&T mobile IPs, which get allocated from an absurdly sized pool with barely working geoip.
Post reply on HN