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.
It's one thing for LAPD to throw up a camera that looks in your windows with a warrant (not convinced they have one, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt).
It's another thing for LAPD to throw up a camera that looks in your windows AND LEAVE IT UNSECURED ON THE INTERNET.
"Due to its sensitive nature, the information contained on this website is restricted to law enforcement professionals and government agencies only. For access contact us at 503-932-6899 or email us at [email protected]"
The website appears to be compromised. It's hosting and redirecting to webstores/spam/porn/etc.
It seems an enterprising agent decided to start building and selling his own covert camera boxes but I wonder how old these things are now. Perhaps they've been forgotten?
> "Due to its sensitive nature, the information contained on this website is restricted to law enforcement professionals and government agencies only. For access contact us at 503-932-6899 or email us at [email protected]"
My personal experience with these types of camera is based on a conversation I had with a friend who’s a public defender in washington state. She said it can be nearly impossible to figure out who owns or put up all the random cameras you see at traffic intersections. Also good luck trying to subpoena the footage. And this is from someone who has greater access to government information than the typical citizen and had reason to find out.
Is the implication that it is hard to find the owner because it is messy and any number of agencies could place them or that it is difficult to find the owner because it is purposefully hidden or "super secret"?
> The VB-H43's powerful DIGIC Net II Processor allows simultaneous streaming of M-JPEG and H.264 codecs in multiple resolutions (1080p, 720p and 4:3 category video sizes) to meet various end-user needs.
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?
As a practical matter I'm not worried about clicking a link that's been clicked tens of thousands of times today.
There's enough ambiguous laws they could likely come after anyone who accesses it if they wanted but given the facts of the situation I doubt they'd be able to make anything stick and it would be a giant PR snafu.
> 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 not sure I've heard anything like "random web surfer who visits site charged with X" when they're not already the focus of some investigation or something.
Plenty of law related to tech that gets stretched to absurdity out there but I haven't seen anything to make me think hitting a rando site is a real risk in the US.
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"
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) is a plane circling the airport. The heavy circles are surveillance drones. Really." "Uhh.... (shifts uncomfortably) so where do you want to go for lunch today?"
It's not 100% consistent, but part of it is a reasonable expectation of privacy, compared to what the public would normally see. E.g. having a camera up in the air is not what the public normally sees. Which in some cases violated suspects' rights.
That means LE should have warrants for these cameras. Plus, they're not allowed to go on fishing expeditions.... These cameras aren't designed to only look at one place, but a wide area... Which means public oversight is required to keep LE honest. If there are no public records, then it's unreasonable search.
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 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 that book was that the initial spark for the project was someone in government watching Enemy of the State in the 90s and thinking "we should be building this". Somewhat comically the guy who worked on the camera effects in the movie also has a defense company and was asked to help build the real thing.
IANAL. It's also surveying something openly visible from public space, so even distributing it accidentally isn't illegal, per se. Now, it's obviously fucked, and abuses and mistakes like this should make public officials think twice about building a surveillance state. My main hope is news outlets that pick this up tie it to the encryption debate.
It is possible that it is my general weariness talking, but based on our US government amazing level of incompetence displayed when dealing with COVID-19, I am now way less inclined to accept as a given that government can do conspiracies well.
My idiot brother shot a county Sheriff during a traffic stop many years ago. The entire thing was captured on a dash cam so there was no doubt who did it. He immediately ran and was never captured.
These camera types were placed around his house from the power poles. The neighbor actually filmed the install.
I suspect this is standard le practice for various scenarios.
it’s been 9 years and my brother has never been seen since that night. I suspect he killed himself in the expansive, Wild, thick forests the area is known for.
I was surprised to find that one of the cameras listed is just down the street from where I live, and I frequently walk near it. It’s a pretty safe area, so I’m curious what sort of suspected crime they’re monitoring.
That being said, the camera itself doesn’t make me feel uncomfortable. What does make me feel uncomfortable is the realization that such cameras are often open to the internet for anyone to view. That sort of incompetence isn’t what I like to see.
Looks like they did. The logins weren't there earlier. Would love to see the frantic email thread that led to that. Still worth noting that none of those sites appear to have any sort of TLS enabled.
[+] [-] ideophobia|5 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] bsder|5 years ago|reply
It's one thing for LAPD to throw up a camera that looks in your windows with a warrant (not convinced they have one, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt).
It's another thing for LAPD to throw up a camera that looks in your windows AND LEAVE IT UNSECURED ON THE INTERNET.
[+] [-] znpy|5 years ago|reply
One might think that drugs are only an excuse.
[+] [-] casefields|5 years ago|reply
"Due to its sensitive nature, the information contained on this website is restricted to law enforcement professionals and government agencies only. For access contact us at 503-932-6899 or email us at [email protected]"
http://ipsurvconcepts.com/
Good job fellas.
[+] [-] snypher|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BlueGh0st|5 years ago|reply
It seems an enterprising agent decided to start building and selling his own covert camera boxes but I wonder how old these things are now. Perhaps they've been forgotten?
[+] [-] 0xdeadb00f|5 years ago|reply
> "Due to its sensitive nature, the information contained on this website is restricted to law enforcement professionals and government agencies only. For access contact us at 503-932-6899 or email us at [email protected]"
> http://ipsurvconcepts.com/
> Good job fellas.
Domain is gone. For sale.
[+] [-] enjoyyourlife|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1cvmask|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] riffic|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] milesvp|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sl1ck731|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaron-santos|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EVdotIO|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rnotaro|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] obilgic|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tinix|5 years ago|reply
> The VB-H43's powerful DIGIC Net II Processor allows simultaneous streaming of M-JPEG and H.264 codecs in multiple resolutions (1080p, 720p and 4:3 category video sizes) to meet various end-user needs.
> Max. 30 Clients + 1 Admin Client - H.264: Max. 10 Clients
[+] [-] admiral33|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thsowers|5 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18427626
[+] [-] elicash|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsfyu404ed|5 years ago|reply
There's enough ambiguous laws they could likely come after anyone who accesses it if they wanted but given the facts of the situation I doubt they'd be able to make anything stick and it would be a giant PR snafu.
[+] [-] aasasd|5 years ago|reply
Wonder how many of the VPN-employing folks in fact use something like NordVPN and pay for it with their credit card.
[+] [-] wolfgke|5 years ago|reply
In Tor (or Tails), we trust.
[+] [-] duxup|5 years ago|reply
Plenty of law related to tech that gets stretched to absurdity out there but I haven't seen anything to make me think hitting a rando site is a real risk in the US.
[+] [-] fapjacks|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swarnie_|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] znpy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 101404|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] syshum|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mturmon|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TechBro8615|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gccxsse|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ikeyany|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjoonathan|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chillingeffect|5 years ago|reply
https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/pole-camera-surveillance-f...
It's not 100% consistent, but part of it is a reasonable expectation of privacy, compared to what the public would normally see. E.g. having a camera up in the air is not what the public normally sees. Which in some cases violated suspects' rights.
That means LE should have warrants for these cameras. Plus, they're not allowed to go on fishing expeditions.... These cameras aren't designed to only look at one place, but a wide area... Which means public oversight is required to keep LE honest. If there are no public records, then it's unreasonable search.
[+] [-] gonehome|5 years ago|reply
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 that book was that the initial spark for the project was someone in government watching Enemy of the State in the 90s and thinking "we should be building this". Somewhat comically the guy who worked on the camera effects in the movie also has a defense company and was asked to help build the real thing.
[+] [-] dehrmann|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tren-hard|5 years ago|reply
It's pretty much impossible to navigate through a city anonymously in a vehicle.
Now with facial recognition software getting so advanced I'd water it's impossible to walk through a city anonymously as well.
They don't necessarily need aerial imagery when every intersection has HD cameras pointing at you.
[+] [-] A4ET8a8uTh0|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LiquidPolymer|5 years ago|reply
These camera types were placed around his house from the power poles. The neighbor actually filmed the install.
I suspect this is standard le practice for various scenarios.
it’s been 9 years and my brother has never been seen since that night. I suspect he killed himself in the expansive, Wild, thick forests the area is known for.
[+] [-] zenexer|5 years ago|reply
That being said, the camera itself doesn’t make me feel uncomfortable. What does make me feel uncomfortable is the realization that such cameras are often open to the internet for anyone to view. That sort of incompetence isn’t what I like to see.
[+] [-] a3n|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acheron|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rolph|5 years ago|reply
" <td width="780" height="30" valign="top" class="copyright1">3030 Briana Ct.NW, Salem, OR 97304 (503) 932-6899</td> "
also check these out:
https://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?t=19005
https://builtwith.com/ipsurvconcepts.com
https://hu.cybo.com/US-kapcsolat/ip-surveillance-concepts-ll...
[+] [-] TheBill|5 years ago|reply
This is going to get interesting.
[+] [-] forgot-my-pw|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gasp0de|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kickopotomus|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dopamean|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rolph|5 years ago|reply
i know i would appreciate it if someone did that for me, and id bet a lot of people here would.