Live data from Hacker News

We hacked Burger King: How auth bypass led to drive-thru audio surveillance

bobdahacker.com

71–80 of 239 posts

Re: We hacked Burger King: How auth bypass led to drive-thru audio surveillance

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, You can in America. Video recording is permitted without consent in the public places. Example CCTVs.

Different states have differing laws regarding recording conversations. In some states both parties in conversation must consent to recording: https://www.justia.com/50-state-surveys/recording-phone-call...

This is not related to public spaces.

Re: We hacked Burger King: How auth bypass led to drive-thru audio surveillance

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, You can in America. Video recording is permitted without consent in the public places. Example CCTVs.

Funny, whenever they show the CCTV footage it doesn't seem to have any sound.... Secretly recording voices is a felony is many places in 'merica.

Please stop spreading misinformation . There are so many court cases about this. A quick google will give you dozens you can read.

Legally there is no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in public spaces and the only limit on that are extreme telephoto lenses looking from public spaces into private spaces.

Edit: Another commenter has made me aware that some states do ban non-consensual audio recordings in public: https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/massachusetts-recording-law

The laws prohibiting these recordings have neither been upheld nor overturned by the US Supreme Court.

Re: We hacked Burger King: How auth bypass led to drive-thru audio surveillance

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different states have differing laws regarding recording conversations. In some states both parties in conversation must consent to recording: https://www.justia.com/50-state-surveys/recording-phone-call...

Thats only for private phone calls not for public spaces. Edit: Another commenter has made me aware that some states do ban non-consensual audio recordings in public: https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/massachusetts-recording-law The laws prohibiting these recordings have neither been upheld nor overturned by the US Supreme Court.

I could easily see a judge regarding the conversation over a drive thru speaker as not a public space and more like a telephone call.

Re: We hacked Burger King: How auth bypass led to drive-thru audio surveillance

#74
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California or Canada?

and removed so that i don't get sued for gross misinterpretation, ignorance and misinformation spreading. What was here was a link to a California statute that is apparently misinformation somehow. Who knows, I'm just some igorant redneck apparently.

Did you read that law? It applies to “Confidential communication…carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio”. Conversation in public is by nature not “confidential”. You are grossly misinterpreting this law and (unintentionally/ignorantly) spreading misinformation.

Edit: Another commenter has made me aware that some states do ban non-consensual audio recordings in public: https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/massachusetts-recording-law

The laws prohibiting these recordings have neither been upheld nor overturned by the US Supreme Court.

Re: We hacked Burger King: How auth bypass led to drive-thru audio surveillance

#75
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The signal is for the hats. Black hats may be more likely to attack. White hats will find better things to do. Some might even swap hats.

You’ve described a totally different “signal” than the comment I replied to.

I guess I should have made it clearer by making the implicit explicit:

“The signal isn’t to pay white hats more, instead…”

And perhaps an addendum such as:

“…which will then, indirectly and in the long run, create the signal you were replying to.”

Re: We hacked Burger King: How auth bypass led to drive-thru audio surveillance

#76
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California or Canada?

and removed so that i don't get sued for gross misinterpretation, ignorance and misinformation spreading. What was here was a link to a California statute that is apparently misinformation somehow. Who knows, I'm just some igorant redneck apparently.

> For the purposes of this section, “confidential communication” means any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

This is not confidential communications.

Re: We hacked Burger King: How auth bypass led to drive-thru audio surveillance

#78

The voice recordings at the drive thru without disclaimers of recording seem like maybe a two party state lawyer's wet dream? I guess they could argue shouting into a machine in public carries no expectation of privacy, but it seems like a liability to me.

Do you need 2 party consent for recording in a public space?

Edit: Another commenter has made me aware that some states do ban non-consensual audio recordings in public: https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/massachusetts-recording-law

The laws prohibiting these recordings have neither been upheld nor overturned by the US Supreme Court.

Re: We hacked Burger King: How auth bypass led to drive-thru audio surveillance

#79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats only for private phone calls not for public spaces. Edit: Another commenter has made me aware that some states do ban non-consensual audio recordings in public: https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/massachusetts-recording-law The laws prohibiting these recordings have neither been upheld nor overturned by the US Supreme Court.

I could easily see a judge regarding the conversation over a drive thru speaker as not a public space and more like a telephone call.

Edit: Apparently some states do ban non-consensual audio recordings in public: https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/massachusetts-recording-law

The laws prohibiting these recordings have neither been upheld nor overturned by the US Supreme Court.

Re: We hacked Burger King: How auth bypass led to drive-thru audio surveillance

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t get to secretly record voices in public spaces.

Yes, You can in America. Video recording is permitted without consent in the public places. Example CCTVs.

> You don’t get to secretly record voices in public spaces.

> Video recording is permitted without consent in the public places.

I have no idea why you would think that these two statements are related, or why people would continue this conversation. Fishing and skateboarding are two other things that are often allowed, but neither are related to recording audio.

And for anyone who thinks this is a nitpick, please look it up.

edit: also, saying that you can record people when you're obviously recording people is also not relevant. The problem is recording people without their knowledge or consent. I cannot put an audio recorder in my pocket in many places (such as Illinois) and record you, whether in a private space or in a public space. If I put my audio recorder on the table, and you can choose whether you want to speak or not, it's legally an entirely different scenario, whether we are in a public space or not.

Post reply on HN