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

Detection of hidden cellular GPS vehicle trackers

researchgate.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 118 posts

Re: Detection of hidden cellular GPS vehicle trackers

#71

Post by potato3732842 »

SchemaLoad wrote: post #49
b8 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simply putting a fake plate would bypass that. Truckers usually have a pulley system on their plates to avoid tolls, so maybe more normal drivers will implement such a system or find a way to create something that messes up their camera OCR.

That would probably flag you immediately for a plate that doesn't match the car, a plate that does match but seen in two places that would be impossible to travel in that time.

That event would go in the same bucket as the other ten million alerts where the system got confused between visually near identical models or some de-badged sports car.

The fact of the matter is that the powers that be can't overtly use the dragnet in the way that the "how dare someone skip a $2 toll" and "muh two ton death machine" crowds would like to see because the other 99.5% of the public will be all "hey WTF" and politicians will pass laws to pander to those people. The dragnet operating powers that be would rather retain the ability to use the dragnet unfettered even in bad ways so they normally reserve its use for "serious" things.

Re: Detection of hidden cellular GPS vehicle trackers

#72

Post by aa-jv »

avidiax wrote: post #62
Scoundreller wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We talking MEMS/inertia detection, vibration detection or auto-geo-fencing?

The absolute cheapest thing is just to never update the position unless it significantly changed. Doesn't require anything except the GPS chip. Bluetooth beacons would need to add an accelerometer, but that undermines their use in pinpointing an object at rest.

Probably the most effective technique for detection would be attained by spoofing the GPS signals, like the IRGC did to capture multiple US' drones?

https://www.gpsworld.com/gps-circle-spoofing-discovered-in-i...

I wonder how easily GPS can be spoofed, locally ...

https://rntfnd.org/2021/10/28/cheap-and-easy-gps-gnss-spoofi...

Seems someone already had the idea:

https://www.reddit.com/r/hardwarehacking/comments/10na5c8/sp...

Re: Detection of hidden cellular GPS vehicle trackers

#73

Post by v7n »

Ylpertnodi wrote: post #48
b8 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also that some devices log data locally and require manual pickup + review to avoid detection. Also LEO have been known to temporarily disable such devices when people do scans to detect them for Undercovers.

>Also LEO have been known to temporarily disable such devices when people do scans to detect them for Undercovers. Any more info on this?

Since I'm not seeing any other references, here's a timestamp for a YouTube video where an ex-undercover op is interviewed and such thing is mentioned: How FBI Undercover Agents Actually Work | Authorized Account | Insider https://youtu.be/h6au3ppTm7g?t=1123

Re: Detection of hidden cellular GPS vehicle trackers

#74

Post by chneu »

extraduder_ire wrote: post #59
chneu wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, you absolutely can randomize your Mac on most devices nowadays.

I think per-AP randomisation of wifi mac has been the default on any mobile device I've checked in the past five years at least. Haven't examined bluetooth as closely.

It's been the norm on mobile devices for a while. It isn't as normal on desktop but I think most OSes do it nowadays, it might need to be enabled though.

Re: Detection of hidden cellular GPS vehicle trackers

#75

Post by Spooky23 »

EGreg wrote: post #45
Spooky23 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's networks of these things, so you can't trust what is said. The host agency may keep for 30 days, but exchange data with third parties, through organizations like NLETS, private collaborations and informal exchange. I'd assume with NLETS searches that the Feds have an overwatch capability and spy on the spies so to speak. This stuff started with "drug corridors". Police and Feds can and do track vehicles on th…

Why don’t they just use facial and gait and heartbeat recognition everywhere? London and other cities already have CCTV cameras, and an AI can quickly figure out wherr you are. In China it has been deployed at scale!

It probably has, but I have not seen public sources that have reported it.

I’m sure as part of one of our many states of emergency in the United States deployments will be accelerated. NYPD has an extensive camera network in Manhattan that probably does this.

Re: Detection of hidden cellular GPS vehicle trackers

#76

Post by zikduruqe »

aa-jv wrote: post #72
avidiax wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The absolute cheapest thing is just to never update the position unless it significantly changed. Doesn't require anything except the GPS chip. Bluetooth beacons would need to add an accelerometer, but that undermines their use in pinpointing an object at rest.

Probably the most effective technique for detection would be attained by spoofing the GPS signals, like the IRGC did to capture multiple US' drones? https://www.gpsworld.com/gps-circle-spoofing-discovered-in-i... I wonder how easily GPS can be spoofed, locally ... https://rntfnd.org/2021/10/28/cheap-and-easy-gps-gnss-spoofi... Seems someone already had the idea: https://www.reddit.com/r/hardwarehacking/comments/10na5…

I used to have a GPS repeater installed in our lab for RF testing. The FAA did not like it at all and threatened us with action.

Don't go spoofing or broadcasting your own GPS signals unless you have a decent legal team behind you.

Re: Detection of hidden cellular GPS vehicle trackers

#77

Post by manarth »

closewith wrote: post #66
sodality2 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Their brand of ALPR cameras have spread like a plague very quickly all over the US

Private ANPR in public spaces is unlawful in the entire EU. The US needs to get a GDPR equivalent to protect basic human rights from corporate surveillance.

For a given definition of "public".

Driving into a supermarket carpark? Most will have time-limits controlled by private ANPR cameras.

Re: Detection of hidden cellular GPS vehicle trackers

#78

Post by zikduruqe »

sodality2 wrote: post #6
ge96 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's not related to flock safety (company) is it?

Yep. Their brand of ALPR cameras have spread like a plague very quickly all over the US

And Lowe's (hardware store) has signed an agreement with them to put them on their properties. Vote with your wallets.

"Retail giant Lowe’s is another customer, according to two former Flock employees and confirmed by the company. Scott Draher, vice president of asset protection at Lowe’s, said in a statement that Flock cameras are “just one example of a multifaceted approach” to combat shoplifting. He declined to comment on how many of its stores have Flock cameras or if it provides camera feeds to law enforcement."

https://ourcommunitynow.com/P/americas-biggest-mall-owner-is...

Re: Detection of hidden cellular GPS vehicle trackers

#79

Post by vv_ »

It'd be cheaper to buy an RTL-SDR and an LTE antenna than this tinySA. I'm not convinced that a layman would have enough practical experience with radio's to detect these signals though. The bands used for IoT aren't exclusively used for IoT either - they'll contain "normal" LTE signals too.

Re: Detection of hidden cellular GPS vehicle trackers

#80

Post by rickdeckard »

avidiax wrote: post #62
Scoundreller wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We talking MEMS/inertia detection, vibration detection or auto-geo-fencing?

The absolute cheapest thing is just to never update the position unless it significantly changed. Doesn't require anything except the GPS chip. Bluetooth beacons would need to add an accelerometer, but that undermines their use in pinpointing an object at rest.

Using the GPS signal to detect motion is the most power-expensive path though.

The cheapest in terms of power consumption is a simple Accelerometer/Gyroscope component. The difference can be months or even years in longer battery runtime compared to GPS.

Post reply on HN