Hacker? Not a hacker. This information is broadcast openly.
TIL if(wireless_signal=OR(“tazer”,“bodycam”),“Police Detected”, ) is hacking.
I learned a while ago that clicking around on a web site and accidentally wandering into an area that is supposed to be secure but isn’t is hacking as well
That literally is hacking, though. Poking around until you find a vulnerability.
I don’t think any jury in the world would call clicking on links literally hacking. When I read poking around, that is what I think of. And their point is that if you click on a link that takes you to a secure area because of bad security, it is defined as hacking by the law in some jurisdictions. This is because those laws don’t describe the action, they simply say “accessing” certain data. Which is lame.
Here in Germany clicking links is not hacking. Website owner is responsible for where the link goes to. Remember the link disclaimer on websites?
But typing pageId=2 instead of pageId=1 opened via link is hacking.
Clicking show page source and seeing cleartext passwords left in there is hacking.
On login forgetting to type your password and entering with an empty password is hacking.
What the deutsche fuck
@streetcoder @Modern_medicine_isnt thats funny, I never dig the defenition of hacking here, but everytime I see someone hacking on news they are with a sweatshirt wirh the cmd open making ping to google, i think it must be something like that
So a chess player that exploits an opponent’s weakness is hacking?
A snake that finds an entrance to a gopher burrow is hacking?
Reminds me of 15 years ago.
- friend left phone unlocked
- post something insane to their facebook
- “I hacked you!”
It’s true and a real thing, but its also just a BS excuse to push for removal of body cameras.
If I’m remembering correctly, the data on body cams actually shows they don’t help with police accountability much at all, and instead just serve as additional surveillance of already over policed communities. Like I’m pretty sure they haven’t reduced rates of police violence. I’ll try to find the paper I read about this, but basically giving police more technology isn’t the solution, abolishing them is.
I disagree with this, at least for the US. When people die and the cops can’t provide footage, people know something is wrong. People are falsely accused and get footage in diacovery. If you ask a defense attorney, you might change your mind. Get rid of Flock, but keep the body cams.
Of all the surveillance we want to be rid of, and it’s body cams… Figures…
“I think it comes down to either incompetence or laziness … it just seems like the engineers who developed this were either ignorant or incompetent,” he said"
Nah, I’m sure the engineers knew, or were too incompetent
As per usual, it’s management who pushed for such tight development schedules that they didn’t have the time to do it right while at the same time offering so little money they could only attract idiots who only know half of what they should.
I fucking guarantee you that is the core of the problem
Standard operating procedure. Every engineer knows the old rule: On time, On Budget, Done right; pick 2. No one ever picks option 3, public or private.
We pay these people a mountain of money to terrorize us with incompetence.
Couple of sensationalized things. Undercover cops aren’t carrying a body cam or taser. That would be easy to spot in person.
Next bluetooth is short range. You gotta be decently close. Like 25 feet give or take.
Commentary, of course the company was lazy. It costs money to add the feature to rotate mac addresses.Depends on the situation. They might not carry it into undercover situations but may have one sitting at home or in their take home vehicle. That’s just as dangerous if a criminal follows them and has the app.
With a proper custom antenna you can track bluetooth devices from larger distances
Interesting. How far?
Never tried myself, but big boys say 1-2km, depending on ambient noise levels, if no major obstacles in the way.
How is it able to get the latitude and longitude of the devices? As far as I’m aware, the bluetooth spec doesn’t provide coordinates as part of its metadata. And you’d need some kind of triangulation method otherwise. I’m certainly not able to get the coordinates of my bluetooth devices. Wish I could, would make finding the remote a lot easier.
Maybe as a network scanner, because I know for “high accuracy” Android, for example, scans GPS, WiFi, and Bluetooth in combination to help determine better accuracy of location. If it picks up a store WiFi it’s going to know you’re within 100ft. Or some car has a built-in hotspot that either found. Not 100%sure without looking into it further, just speculation.
You can get RSSI and guesstimate the distance. Since it’s on a phone, you have the phones coordinates.
If the objects are moving in relation to each other, you can attempt a rudimentary triangulation. Its error prone, but you don’t need 100% accuracy.
I worked at a startup where we built industrial grade “apple air tags” and used phones to locate objects. This was like 10 years ago nowadays.
Didn’t read, is he dead? The term “tried” makes me anxious.
I don’t think Australian cops are quite as trigger-happy as those in the USA.
