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.
@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
In theory, the difference would be intent. If you proceed to inform others of the vulnerability or exploit it yourself to share secrets, the malicious intent is hard to deny.
If you just click around to see what the site has to offer, it becomes harder to prove. Some places have passed laws banning the mere accessing of content that should not be accessible, thereby putting the burden of proof on the defendant to show that they did not know the link would lead to confidential information, made no attempt to extract it, immediately withdrew upon realisation and so on.
On one hand, brief amd harmless access might not be worth legal action anyway, unless actual damage was done, so the expectation is probably that discretion in enforcement would moderate the heavy-handedness of the law. That isn’t exactly unusual: It’s easier to let something slide than to punish a transgression there is no law against.
One the other, trusting the fairness of that system might not be a good idea…
So a chess player that exploits an opponent’s weakness is hacking?
A snake that finds an entrance to a gopher burrow is hacking?“Finding vulnerabilities” is the kind of dangerously overbroad generalization that gave us the DMCA.
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.
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.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.
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.
I dunno, if you are that kind of undercover cop, and you are living in your normal home with your family… and the criminals follow you to that home. I think we have bigger problems. The neighbors surely know the person is a cop, don’t need fancy bluetooth anything to figure that out.
I wouldn’t answer the kind of questions someone would likely ask if they wanted to know what my neighbor does for a living.
But either way there are several echelons of “undercover”. Not every cop who is under cover is in deep covers for years on a RICO case.
And while it’s unlikely they’d be wearing a body cam home, its more likely they might have a police issued taser stashed somewhere. Cops aren’t smarter than your average individual and they absolutely will do things that aren’t in keeping with SOP.
One of my friends works for a police department as a mechanic and their chief literally shot up her own police car by accident. Loaded service pistol in her purse. She was riffling through it and the gun went off (she claims). It’s definitely not outside the realm of possibility especially if they didn’t know.
I totally agree that not all undercover cops are deep cover. But the ones that aren’t basically aren’t hiding it all day everyday. They hide it to do a simple sting like to bust a prostitute. Once the bust happens, they don’t care who kmows. And the relatively small time criminals they are busting aren’t getting all techy to try and find them.
We pay these people a mountain of money to terrorize us with incompetence.
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.
