Subscriber Discussion

Stop The Presses! Apparently, Law Enforcement Needs Equipment To Help Enforce The Law!

Avatar
Ari Erenthal
•Sep 02, 2016
Chesapeake & Midlantic

Trigger warnings: stupidity.

I hope you're sitting down. Apparently, police officers use hidden cameras to capture evidence of people doing things! This shocking revelation is literally the most ground shattering exclusive in the history of journalism. 

And if you're still reading this, hold on to your monocles, because there's even more news. Apparently, there exists businesses that actually design, build, advertise, and sell these hidden cameras! 

Now, let's take a short break to think about puppies. Just close your eyes and concentrate and... see? Look how cute and fluffy they are!

I apologize for posting such upsetting news. I hope no one has been permanently damaged by reading it. 

 

(3)
U
Undisclosed #1
•Sep 02, 2016
IPVMU Certified

They must have quickly edited the article because now all they say regarding the 'hidden camera' revelation is this sentence:

Tools for covert spying make up a large part of the catalogue, particularly in the audio and video surveillance sections, where sensors are hidden in everything from pocket knives and birdhouses to suspenders...

Which now leaves the bulk of article talking about cell-phone eavesdropping by LE, a not very well known capability, whereby mobile equipment can masquerade as cell towers and entice devices to join their network. And if you can join them, jam them!

The catalog does seem to confidential, though most of the video cameras look like ones found anywhere.

Avatar
Ari Erenthal
•Sep 02, 2016
Chesapeake & Midlantic
In reply to Undisclosed #1

I just checked. Scroll down, there's a screenshot of covert cameras in garbage cans and birdhouses and stuff. It's now below the cellphone tracking stuff.

U
Undisclosed #2
•Sep 02, 2016

I assume you were being "mock-shocked". As a former cop, i used hidden cameras all the time, even in the late 70's and 80's.

(1)
UI
Undisclosed Integrator #3
•Sep 02, 2016

The shock factor isn't/wouldn't be in the use of hidden cameras and other covert surveillance, tracking and detection equipment and service. The shock factor would be in the lack of procedures, policies and oversight in their use.

Have you recently checked your car's undercarriage or that police officer's wife's car undercarriage who you are dating?

(3)
(1)
Avatar
Ari Erenthal
•Sep 02, 2016
Chesapeake & Midlantic
In reply to Undisclosed Integrator #3

One of the reasons I don't date the wives of police officers is because I'm worried about official retribution, yes.

U
Undisclosed #1
•Sep 02, 2016
IPVMU Certified
In reply to Undisclosed Integrator #3

...that police officer's wife's car undercarriage who you are dating?

Call me insensitive but anyone who dates undercarriages is just asking for trouble.

(2)
U
Undisclosed #4
•Sep 03, 2016
In reply to Undisclosed Integrator #3

"The shock factor isn't/wouldn't be in the use of hidden cameras and other covert surveillance, tracking and detection equipment and service. The shock factor would be in the lack of procedures, policies and oversight in their use."

Nailed it.

U
Undisclosed #1
•Sep 03, 2016
IPVMU Certified
In reply to Undisclosed #4

Interesting how the vibe of this thread has slowly drifted from its clear conservative origins to something decidedly more left of center, in a nearly imperceptible way :)

U
Undisclosed #4
•Sep 03, 2016
In reply to Undisclosed #1

Disagree with your assessment.

Ari was being his funny self when he posted the OP - he knows there have always been covert cameras in use by LE.

Greg Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill are not known for their articles about garbage can or birdhouse cameras - nor is the article about these things just because a referenced company offers those in it's catalog.

It's the cell tower spoofing technology that is the gist of the article he linked to:

"The national controversy over military-grade spy gear trickling down to local police has largely focused on the “Stingray,” a single type of cellular spy box manufactured by a single company, Harris Corp. But the menu of options available to domestic law enforcement is enormous and poorly understood, mostly because of efforts by both manufacturers and their police clientele to suppress information about their functionality and use."

So when UD3I pointed this out (by noting 'the lack of procedures, policies and oversight' when it comes to the use of these technologies) I visually agreed with his assessment.

U
Undisclosed #1
•Sep 03, 2016
IPVMU Certified
In reply to Undisclosed #4

Disagree with your assessment.

But I don't disagree with yours, really. You said

It's the cell tower spoofing technology that is the gist of the article he linked to:

And I agreed in my first post:

Which now leaves the bulk of article talking about cell-phone eavesdropping by LE, a not very well known capability...

You also said

Ari was being his funny self when he posted the OP - he knows there have always been covert cameras in use by LE.

I agree with this as well, he is obviously being sarcastic (and funny) when he says

Apparently, police officers use hidden cameras to capture evidence of people doing things! This shocking revelation is literally the most ground shattering exclusive in the history of journalism.

Since both agree he didn't literally mean this, what did he mean?

I assumed he meant that the article was trying to make something out of nothing, in other words, "The police use hidden cameras, so what?"

Which, IMHO, is somewhat in defense of LE.

The point that you drove home i.e., "the lack of procedures and policies" by LE, could be viewed as more of an attack.

Whether you were responding to the article or Ari, I was only speaking about the tone of this discussion, (as well as trying to be funny, like Ari, but I'm not).

New discussion

Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.

Newest discussions