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

Redditor finds unsecured surveillance cameras seemingly placed by US government

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 203 posts

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

#71

Post by dsfyu404ed »

vsareto wrote: post #69
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The website doesn't appear to be compromised or registration expired to me. When I visited the site and presented a boring old chrome on mac useragent I got the following page back. https://i.postimg.cc/D0GxnRdY/Screen-Shot-2020-05-13-at-1-44... When I followed the link to the login page I got an error trace.

Google: site: http://ipsurvconcepts.com/ You'll find stuff in /userfiles serving all sorts of shady things that have nothing to do with the site.

Makes sense. I didn't really want to poke at the server itself in a manner any more in depth than firing a web browser at the thing in the normal manner.

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

#72

Post by [deleted] »

jjoonathan wrote: post #58
jeffbee wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so funny how you can whip up conspiracy theories just by adding superfluous adjectives. Instead of just saying "radar" you say "wireless radar device", as if prior radars used wires, and then you say it creates "high-resolution images using radio pulses", as if this did not apply to every radar ever built. We have been using aircraft to track vehicles since the invention of aircraft. The people and their governm…

We shouldn't expect the centuries old philosophical/legal/procedural balance we've crafted between investigatory powers and personal rights to remain valid and correct in the face of a 99.999% decrease in the cost of surveillance and corresponding explosion in scope. Naturally, authorities didn't object to the technological expansion of their power. It's up to us to figure out if/when/how to push back. Step zero is a…

[deleted]

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

#73

Post by abstractbarista »

gonehome wrote: post #36
ikeyany wrote: 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?

Your comment isn't totally true in the narrow sense that it's not being done domestically by the USG specifically (at least at the time I was reading about it). The best book on the topic: https://www.amazon.com/Eyes-Sky-Secret-Gorgon-Stare/dp/05449... The primary domestic use was by the Baltimore police department and it was supplied by an individual billionaire interested in funding the project. Interesting fact in…

Always enjoyed that movie. I suggest everyone check it out!

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

#75

Post by da_chicken »

kube-system wrote: post #68
101404 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So accessing a web site is illegal? I rarely see explicit "you are allowed to access the HTML files on this server" anywhere.

It can be if it was not intended to be public. It's really not much different than walking around outside. You can walk in an unlocked retail store and it's okay, but if you walk into your neighbors bedroom it's not okay.

Yes, and opening an unlocked door will still qualify as breaking and entering if you don't have permission to enter it. Just like taking something that isn't yours is still theft even if you find it in a public space.

The crime isn't circumventing the locks. It's accessing what you don't have the right to access.

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

#76

Post by ikeyany »

jjoonathan wrote: post #67
ikeyany wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did I say there was no legitimate interest to do this? I am in agreement with you in saying this surveillance is not new and is not a conspiracy.

It's possible for something to be not new and not a conspiracy but also not good and not right, all at the same time.

Then it should have been posted in technology, security, or news subreddits.

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

#77

Post by eqdw »

101404 wrote: post #66
bityard wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely untrue. In the US, the law is written such that you may only legally access a system that you own or have explicit authorization from the owner to access. It mirrors common law where you're not generally allowed to enter someone else's home even if they leave the door unlocked. You can, of course (and plenty of people do), debate the specific application of the word, "access" in the context of computer net…

So accessing a web site is illegal? I rarely see explicit "you are allowed to access the HTML files on this server" anywhere.

Yes. This is why weev went to prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev#AT&T_data_breach

tldr: AT&T has an account status page that, for mobile devices, did not require any authorization. Something like /status?phone=8367492738 and you see the account data for that phone. It was guarded by a password if you navigated to it on a desktop/laptop, but it was unsecured if you navigated to it with a mobile device.

He spoofed the user agent string to make his laptop say it was a phone (this is extremely common, there is a button in your browser to do this in one click, and the spec that defines UA string specifically says not to use it for authorization for this exact reason), and dumped the account details from every url.

Despite these being pages publicly accessible on the open internet, he went to jail for years for unauthorized access under the CFAA

Well, I mean, that and (I'm sure) the fact that he was a notorious asshole and the authorities would rather make an example out of him than out of a more sympathetic defendant

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

#78

Post by tptacek »

kube-system wrote: post #68
101404 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So accessing a web site is illegal? I rarely see explicit "you are allowed to access the HTML files on this server" anywhere.

It can be if it was not intended to be public. It's really not much different than walking around outside. You can walk in an unlocked retail store and it's okay, but if you walk into your neighbors bedroom it's not okay.

People on message boards really want to believe there's a black -letter rule about what you can and can't do, but that's not how our criminal codes work. These cases will come down to the state of mind of the person accessing the website, as well as an argument about what a reasonable person would conclude upon reading what's on that website.

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

#79

Post by rolph »

chillingeffect wrote: post #15

might not actually be govt... i've often effected federal-looking stickers and titles on things to keep random people afraid of digging into my stuff.

i vaguely recall something about gangs/narcos setting up nieghborhood networks and cameras in a similar manner to keep watch for cops and warrant activity teams.

im also wondering if mike bethers is a tripwire-pseudonym should someone call and poke around

there is a linkedin page:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-bethers-8002a24

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

#80

Post by syshum »

elicash wrote: 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 am, I can see the DEA or other Federal Agencies doing to me something like they did to Aaron Schwartz and abusing the CFAA to claim simply clicking a link is "Exceeding authorized access"
Post reply on HN