Police Bodycams Can Be Hacked To Doctor Footage

[HCM]

https://www.wired.com/story/police-b...mbid=social_fb

POLICE BODYCAMS CAN BE HACKED TO DOCTOR FOOTAGE

AS THEY PROLIFERATE, police body cameras have courted controversy because of the contentious nature of the footage they capture and questions about how accessible those recordings should be.

But when it comes to the devices themselves, the most crucial function they need to perform—beyond recording footage in the first place—is protecting the integrity of that footage so it can be trusted as a record of events. At the DefCon security conference in Las Vegas on Saturday, though, one researcher will present findings that many body cameras on the market today are vulnerable to remote digital attacks, including some that could result in the manipulation of footage.

Josh Mitchell, a consultant at the security firm Nuix, analyzed five body camera models from five different companies: Vievu, Patrol Eyes, Fire Cam, Digital Ally, and CeeSc. The companies all market their devices to law enforcement groups around the US. Mitchell's presentation does not include market leader Axon—although the company did acquire Vievu in May.

In all but the Digital Ally device, the vulnerabilities would allow an attacker to download footage off a camera, edit things out or potentially make more intricate modifications, and then re-upload it, leaving no indication of the change. Or an attacker could simply delete footage they don't want law enforcement to have.

Worth noting they did not test the Axiom which is the most common bodycam.

The article goes on to quote an ACLU analyst, which makes me wonder, is this a legitimate technical concern or is this the progressive left’s attempt to discredit body cam footage now that it’s clear bodycams have turned out to favor Law Enforcement instead of the Gotcha the left hoped for ?

[HCM]

The people at DefCon do the industry a favor by discovering vulnerabilities and exposing them so that the people dumping out insecure products have to fix them.

Wired is just in it for the clicks.

I was asking the question more of Wired.

[John Hearne]

I find it telling that the headline isn't: SOME Police Bodycams Can Be Hacked to Doctor Footage

[GuanoLoco]

This is where technologies like blockchain will turn out to be invaluable.

Technology, by and large, is full of exploitable security holes easily manipulated by the knowledgeable or skilled or motivated.

I have been in technology for 35 years or so. I also have trust issues in technology - and human behavior - for well-founded reasons.

[Totem Polar]

I have been in technology for 35 years or so. I also have trust issues in technology - and human behavior - for well-founded reasons.

[HCM]

I find it telling that the headline isn't: SOME Police Bodycams Can Be Hacked to Doctor Footage

Is this a factor in why one particular brand has a Glock-like majority of the market ?

[jlw]

Two years ago, cops were evil and every interaction with them must be recorded. We even had a bill dropped (but failed) in our state legislature to require the recording of every interaction.

Current day, cops are still evil, but the body cam footage is actually disproving allegations of wrongdoing at an overwhelming rate, and now the same groups that screamed for body cams are now screaming that they are a privacy concern.

[RevolverRob]

Everything can be hacked. But I sometimes wonder why they've made them accessible remotely. A closed-loop system is the least vulnerable to attack.

Regardless, now that body cams have proliferated and are exonerating officers at an unprecedented rate, the (little L) libertarian me is quite happy. Because this is precisely what was predicted to happen and why I will always be an advocate for recording all interactions between police and public. Because at the end of the day it protects BOTH sides from abuse.

I've already seen effects of it here in Chicago. For instance, the case a few months ago where a university police officer shot a tire-iron wielding, mask and glove wearing, student when he charged him. First the narrative was, "Uni PD cop shoots student of color with mental health issues." Rapid drop of bodycam footage by the PD found the narrative changed to, "We have nothing to say here." I was impressed in a day it went from "MORAL OUTRAGE!" to, "Oh...I guess that kids needs some help, where did the mental health system breakdown*?" And the officer was cleared and back on duty before week's end. End of the day, that's the kind of thing bodycams do for police officers and the public.

*It of course turned out this kid had a history emotional stability issues and was off his meds. The admin had been warned by the student's academic counselor of erratic behavior, but neglected to do anything about it. Until there was a showdown at 1am in a dark alley...which nearly cost the kid his life and officer his job. At least the cam footage exonerated the officer and the kid got lucky and only got shot in the shoulder.

[Chance]

The article goes on to quote an ACLU analyst, which makes me wonder, is this a legitimate technical concern or is this the progressive left’s attempt to discredit body cam footage now that it’s clear bodycams have turned out to favor Law Enforcement instead of the Gotcha the left hoped for ?

It's absolutely a legitimate technical concern, although saying that a digital device can be hacked, especially a wirelessly-enabled digital device, isn't news. There are absolutely massive security issues with Internet of Things devices, and a lot of the tech world in general aren't that great with security.

With regards to Wired: they've really, really gone down hill in the past few years. I've stopped paying any sort of attention to them, which is unfortunate, because they used to be a wonderful source of insight into all things tech. I doubt they approached that article with an agenda, but I wouldn't put it past them. When you want to talk to someone critical of police, but who still has an air of legitimacy, you go to the ACLU, who is always happy to talk to you.

[Wheeler]

It's absolutely a legitimate technical concern, although saying that a digital device can be hacked, especially a wirelessly-enabled digital device, isn't news. There are absolutely massive security issues with Internet of Things devices, and a lot of the tech world in general aren't that great with security.

With regards to Wired: they've really, really gone down hill in the past few years. I've stopped paying any sort of attention to them, which is unfortunate, because they used to be a wonderful source of insight into all things tech. I doubt they approached that article with an agenda, but I wouldn't put it past them. When you want to talk to someone critical of police, but who still has an air of legitimacy, you go to the ACLU, who is always happy to talk to you.

The ACLU is about as objective as the Southern Law Poverty Center. :/