Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions • Hacker News Board

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#101

Post by jjwiseman » Thu, May 07, 2015, 10:55 PM UTC

jjwiseman wrote: post #96

The one tail number that the initial Washington Post article linked to is N39MY[1], which is a Cessna 182T registered to NG Research, PO Box 722 in Bristow, VA. That company's web presence is close to zero, basically below the noise floor. If you google [po box bristow va] you find FAA records for a bunch of other oddly named companies that all have similarly close-to-zero web presence and addresses that are PO Boxes…

Many of these planes have more antennae than I typically see on a small plane, e.g. https://flightaware.com/photos/view/168017-a0096f5188154b56a... which makes me wonder. I'd like to try to monitor and detect aerial Stingray-type equipment as well.

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#102

Post by jjwiseman » Thu, May 07, 2015, 11:03 PM UTC

tomswartz07 wrote: post #2

If you're big into crowd-sourcing: There are super-inexpensive RTL-SDR dongles[1] that can be used to track airplanes such as this. I'm not a lawyer, but I've fooled around with these dongles and a few programs enough to discern that Gov't aircraft absolutely need to broadcast their info on the 1090MHz band. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to have a few people pop these up and see if they could monitor the airplanes…

I do this, and have checked my logs and found evidence of several surveillance aircraft. See my comment below with more details (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9508812).

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#103

Post by lugg » Thu, May 07, 2015, 11:33 PM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #24

vonmoltke wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also an unpopular opinion is that some people (I am not one of them FYI) think mass surveillance of the population is a good thing. It can be hard to understand that position, but there are people who believe mass surveillance, security theater, and the like really are protecting them and that it is all for their own good. As long as sufficient numbers of these people exist there will be not shortage of people who ar…

It a tool like any other. It can be used for good or evil. What you are doing in the middle of a Baltimore street isn't in any way private information. It's a public as you get. Sure, it could be used to perpetrate a Holocaust or something, but so could the 101st airborne. If the government wanted to go all Hitler on us, they already can get google data, facebook data, medical records, essentially everything that is…

Put your privacy in hacking and system security terms.

Sure, it might be easier to exploit a webpages sql injection vuln to hijack your server, but does that mean you should stop running software updates?

In other words, yes, you need to fix google and all the rest, but that doesn't mean you should stop caring about other sorts of surveillance.

And, fwiw, not everyone uses those services for this reason.

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#104

Post by fnordfnordfnord » Fri, May 08, 2015, 12:07 AM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #79

task_queue wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we really want to tie a noose at the end of all the rope we already hand the authorities? There are tools people with power shouldn't have access to, because people with power do not have a good track record of using them in good faith.

We trust the federal government with the power to, no exaggeration, annihilate the world. If the government were going to use its power for evil, it'd go knocking on google/facebook/visa/amazon/comcast/grocery store/school/medical/whatever database to find its enemy. What do you honestly think is a bigger risk for you? Getting murdered by a criminal or the US government via drone. Cause it's like 40k:2 for the past c…

>What do you honestly think is a bigger risk for you? Getting murdered by a criminal or the US government via drone.

Non-sequitor. The gov't doesn't use drones to murder people in the US. OTOH, the gov't does inform local authorities on citizens' behavior. Local authorities sometimes go and kick peoples' doors in based on these and other sources of information. Sometimes their information is faulty, sometimes they make another kind of error. It is terribly difficult to hold police accountable when a mistake or abuse has occurred.

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#105

Post by mirimir » Fri, May 08, 2015, 12:17 AM UTC

Some advice about cellphone OPSEC seems appropriate.

Protesters, or at least key organizers, need to be running apps to detect and block IMSI catchers. And everyone not using them needs to put their phones in Faraday bags.

I don't use smartphones, and so don't know what works best. Searching on "detect IMSI catcher" yields hits for Android, but I see no apps for iOS. AIMSICD looks like a good app. Maybe someone who knows this stuff well can recommend one.

It's easy to make Faraday bags from aluminum foil.[0] To test, you just put the phone in the bag, and call it. If it rings, there are leaks. It's important to turn the phone off before putting it in the Faraday bag. That will prevent rapid battery discharge through high-power attempts to reach towers.

The hardest aspect is getting good electrical contact on all seams, including the access flap. The maximum dimension of any hole in the bag must be small, less than 1-2 cm. A gap at the seam that's 1-2 cm long, even if it's very narrow, will leak (re-radiate) a lot.

The other thing to keep in mind is that aluminum foil gets brittle with bending, and will crack. So you need multiple layers, and the layers must be in electrical contact. Narrow strips of double-stick tape between layers are OK to provide structural stability. But it's a trade-off.

[0] http://www.instructables.com/id/RFID-Secure-Wallet

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#106

Post by task_queue » Fri, May 08, 2015, 12:20 AM UTC

rhino369 wrote: post #79

task_queue wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we really want to tie a noose at the end of all the rope we already hand the authorities? There are tools people with power shouldn't have access to, because people with power do not have a good track record of using them in good faith.

We trust the federal government with the power to, no exaggeration, annihilate the world. If the government were going to use its power for evil, it'd go knocking on google/facebook/visa/amazon/comcast/grocery store/school/medical/whatever database to find its enemy. What do you honestly think is a bigger risk for you? Getting murdered by a criminal or the US government via drone. Cause it's like 40k:2 for the past c…

It's in everyone's best interest that the world isn't annihilated, that power shouldn't be in the hands of people, yet is. That isn't an excuse to hand over more power.

The biggest direct threat to my freedom, and the freedom of the masses, is the expansion of executive power.

Times I've been arrested for expressing my views: 3

Times I've been murdered, injured or locked up by another person: 0

The government already uses the data the private sector collects. It wants better, real-time data using public and invasive techniques that aren't profitable for consumer businesses yet.

I am against both access to that data collected by the private sector and the expansion of mass surveillance. The fact that the data exists is a problem and, ideally, we wouldn't live in a world where surveillance at this extreme for advertising was acceptable.

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#107

Post by hueving » Fri, May 08, 2015, 12:22 AM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #105

Some advice about cellphone OPSEC seems appropriate. Protesters, or at least key organizers, need to be running apps to detect and block IMSI catchers. And everyone not using them needs to put their phones in Faraday bags. I don't use smartphones, and so don't know what works best. Searching on "detect IMSI catcher" yields hits for Android, but I see no apps for iOS. AIMSICD looks like a good app. Maybe someone who k…

If you're shutting off the phone. What's the point?

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#108

Post by fnordfnordfnord » Fri, May 08, 2015, 12:22 AM UTC

comrade1 wrote: post #3

Do blimps have to file flight plans? I lived in DC when they first started testing surveillance blimps there around 2005 or so. They were completely white with a black box on the bottom. I assumed that they had a similar function to rc-135s with some sort of side radar that can track all vehicles in real time. Ah, well, here's an answer to one question: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2475827/data-privacy/ma...…

>I lived in DC when they first started testing surveillance blimps there around 2005 or so.

Do you mean that they first started testing them in DC ca ~2005? Because they have been around for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethered_Aerostat_Radar_System

History

>>The first aerostats were assigned to the United States Air Force in December 1980 at Cudjoe Key, Fla. During the 1980s, the U.S. Customs Service operated a network of aerostats to help counter illegal drug trafficking. Their first site was built at High Rock, Grand Bahamas Island, in 1984. The second site was built at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., in 1986. Before 1992, three agencies operated the TARS network: the Air Force, U.S. Customs Service and U.S. Coast Guard. Congress in 1992 transferred management of the system to the Defense Department, with the Air Force as executive agent. Under Air Force management, through contract consolidation and system standardization, the operations and maintenance cost per site was reduced from $6 million in fiscal year 1992 to $3.5 million in 2007.[citation needed] However the Budget Control Act of 2011 slashed funding for the Air Force, which tried to shut down the project.[3] However, the Department of Homeland Security picked up the project and its funding for fiscal year 2014.[4]

edit: PS, the Aerostat/Blimps have been listed on aviation sectionals as well, so no, they don't file flight plans.

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#109

Post by ska » Fri, May 08, 2015, 12:29 AM UTC

diminoten2 wrote: post #66

ska wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem a lot of people have is with the "mass" part, not the "surveillance" part, of mass-surveillance.

Really? That's news to me, I thought the issue primarily revolved around "surveillance".

I haven't heard anyone complaining about surveillance limited in scope to something with demonstrable cause.

It's warrant-less and widespread data gathering and databases (be they license plates, phone records, image/video or what have you) for speculative use that has people concerned, that I've heard.

Re: Mysterious Planes Over Baltimore Spark Surveillance Suspicions

#110

Post by mirimir » Fri, May 08, 2015, 12:43 AM UTC

hueving wrote: post #107

mirimir wrote: post #105

Some advice about cellphone OPSEC seems appropriate. Protesters, or at least key organizers, need to be running apps to detect and block IMSI catchers. And everyone not using them needs to put their phones in Faraday bags. I don't use smartphones, and so don't know what works best. Searching on "detect IMSI catcher" yields hits for Android, but I see no apps for iOS. AIMSICD looks like a good app. Maybe someone who k…

If you're shutting off the phone. What's the point?

Turning phones "off" may not in fact turn everything off. Even removing batteries may not accomplish that, because there may be backup batteries. At least the baseband radio may remain active. It may be possible to geolocate, and to access the microphone and camera. I say "may" so much because it varies among devices.