Beating CCTV (spy drones in the UK)

[Mauser7]

I UTFSE and could not find a topic related to this, so I decided to start a thread on beating CCTV.

Here's the link to an article I found on another site that I frequent.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070523/tc_nm/britain_surveillance_dc

The UK apparently already has one camera for every fourteen citizens, and now they even have spy drones.

It is only a matter of time before things like this become common in the US, and there is some orwellian tv screen in everyones living room. There could already be cctv anywhere, and in many places in the US they have CCTV. With these spy drones it is possible to be on camera anywhere.

Short of destroying the cameras by shooting them, beating with a bat, etc., is their anyway to beat cctv? Even physically destroying the cameras might not do much when the video tapes are somewhere else.

I have no good ideas so far, except the obvious, never looking up and wearing a hat. Does anybody have any good ideas?

[Charles Owlen Picket]

Mirrored sunglasses (glare in the still pic) & chewing gum (distorts the face, etc) are two banes of the video surveillance dynamic. I know that sounds quite sophomoric but if the idea is to get a good shot of the face in an ID attempt, those are two things that are a real pain in the ass. The whole "fake beard" disguise thing is not something someone may do with leisure but glasses and distorting normal facial expressions make for a poor ID format...just a thought.

[Rbick]

I'm actually working this summer for a company that makes security systems for institutions (prisons, schools, ect.) We work with CCTV quite a bit, and the scary thing is they are starting to use cameras transfering data via CAT5 and assigned an IP address. This means someone from China could monitor you via internet just as easily as someone 5 miles away! :eek:

And in the military, drones are used that hover at about 10,000 ft., have thermal imaging, and are about the size as those foam airplanes you buy at Walmart. They can watch you from 1 1/2 miles up while you're eating dinner... So yeah, it is kind of creepy.

But as far as avoiding it, I have no idea. You could get an EMP device and carry it around, which is unrealistic. Charles' ideas sound good. Being able to grow facial hair quickly would work as well. I let mine grow for 2 weeks and then shave it. This could be useful, it even throws off people in my family.

[hybrid]

The single biggest reason people should really understand that the cameras are no good comes from the biggest proof on the planet...........

Not one single camera identified the threat when the twirp terrorists decided to blow up the bombs in the UK.

Cameras do nothing more than spy...........aka monitor people and their behavior or whereabouts. They are for information gathering and Id bet a thousand bucks on it that they havent prevented a simple crime of assault.

A camera cannot interviene and it surely wont protect you all it can do is spy.

The next time someone comes to mug you..........run towards a camera and see if the thug runs away in fright.

Defeat cameras? Yeah get people pissed off about them and have the city destroy them in front of the gubs very "eyes"

Will it happen? not likely...........

[Bugger]

I'm actually working this summer for a company that makes security systems for institutions (prisons, schools, ect.) We work with CCTV quite a bit, and the scary thing is they are starting to use cameras transfering data via CAT5 and assigned an IP address. (cut)
Rbick, - when you leave the job to go back to college in September, will you be able to share with us some of the trade secrets of that company that makes security systems, please? Then we will be able to work out methods for defeating their devices, to protect our privacy.

BTW Has anyone heard of CCTV cameras being installed in the toilets of large firms or colleges, or in public toilets? There was a scandal here in New Zealand about this a couple of years ago, in which one large employer installed concealed surveillance video cameras in his company's toilets, ostensibly to catch employees loafing or sleeping on the job there. The unions got the cameras removed quickly when their presence was discovered.

[webuyhouses]

Hopefully the spy drones are using a unique sort of signal to transmit their video to the ground (or to a satellite?). If they are, we could figure out what sort of signal this is, then build a circuit to simply detect its presence. mount this in a model airplane, or even a rocket. The hunter drone will have its own gyro-stabilized flight controls, which are steered by the spy signal detector.

send the hunter up, let it acquire a signal, then it will seek the spy drone on its own, and detonate an anti-bigbrother charge when in range.

If this is implemented in a rocket, you would have to aim it at the target to launch, but in an airplane it could fly a holding pattern until the signal is detected.

The technology to build this is readily available, although It might not be possible to differentiate the drones downlink signal if its on a common carrier, like a cellphone or something.

The interface between signal detectors and flight controls would require a mini-plc or basic stamp or something along those lines.

[Jacks Complete]

^- because getting arrested or even "disappeared" as a terrorist for having a surface-to-air missile is somehow better than wearing a large hat?

If it's a drone aircraft, it is controlled by someone nearby (relatively nearby - IP propagation delays mean internet control for flight is right out, so it has to be a direct radio link) This link can be jammed or detected fairly easily. The transmitters will be on all the time as the radio is carrying the CCTV information down, and the flight controls are going up. RF direction finding would take you to the transmitters right away.

Of course, what you would say to the policemen watching you I'm not sure. Since the UK police can detain you for as long as they feel like on a whim (even without the new laws they are hoping for to do this legally) and arrest you if you walk off, your only options would be to either hide until they stopped tracking you with the UAV, or go find them and terminate them with extreme prejudice.

[webuyhouses]

what you would say to the policemen watching you I'm not sure.

How hard could it be to make the hunter look exactly like the existing drones?

Is there any place outside of town where you could launch it without being on camera? Things like this can have a surprisingly long range, and since its meant to seek the signal on its own, you only have to ensure that it makes it into the air.

Also make the warhead big enough to eliminate evidence, and carefully wash the finished model with peroxide and/ or bleach before using.

It would only take a few of these to convince the world that someone is serious... or that they need funding for their own antiaircraft missiles.

[BlackFalcoN]

Hopefully the spy drones are using a unique sort of signal to transmit their video to the ground (or to a satellite?). If they are, we could figure out what sort of signal this is, then build a circuit to simply detect its presence. mount this in a model airplane, or even a rocket. The hunter drone will have its own gyro-stabilized flight controls, which are steered by the spy signal detector.


Aside the cost and research involved for this project, just imagine the potential consequences of this method.

Blowing a very expensive, government surveillance drone into bits and pieces of sharp metal isn't a very smart way to further your fight against British anti-privacy/anti-crime/anti-terror measures...

'Homemade SAMs homing in on radio signals to avoid personal detection'; I'm pretty sure you'll be labelled a "home-grown terrorist bend on havoc" in no time by the media; thus giving politicians even more incentive to pass restrictions on privacy.

The whole goal is to attract LESS surveillance to yourself, not being the news-of-the-day by blowing up some government property...

If you really are determined on removing the drones from the sky, I would suggest a far simpler approach.
Why not create a system where you attach ultra-light transparent (fishing)nets to ground-attached lines (preferably on a tall building), and lift it several hundreds meters into the air by helium balloons.

This approach is much more passive (the nets can just sit for days up there in the air and wait to catch any object (drone, bird, Cessna, ... :D ) travelling by and getting tangled up in the nets.

The costs and research in this KISS method are just a fraction of 1 homemade homing missile, and it's components are not prone to getting banned easily. (Could you imagine government restrictions on balloons, fishing nets and helium ?).

Since it's a passive approach, your chances of being detected while airing the balloons are minimal, since you can do it any time (drone does not have to be near to be destroyed, eventually) and you will (hopefully) be nowhere near when the *hover* *hover* *tangle* *crash* *sirens* happens ;)

A couple of injured or dead soccermoms by crashing/exploding government drones, is only what it takes before public opinion calls for cancelling the surveillance drone project.

One can only sit and wonder what they will come up with next to ensure the final destruction of Britain’s privacy :p

[Rbick]

Bugger - Sure I can relay information learned. It certainly isn't classified, and I wouldn't think anyone there is going to be watching roguesci anyway. I'll learn what I can and let you guys know.

Jacks Complete - You are right about some instances with the drones. They are sometimes controlled by a nearby source. However, a good percentage of the time, they are being flown by operators on the other side of the world. These obviously use sattelites to communicate. Although all drones are not equipped with this feature, more and more of them are becoming so. So while our boys are over in Iraq, big brother can be watching everything from Langley. Nothing ever went unrecorded over there, it was fucking annoying having some ass back in the states make sure we stayed "politically correct" in combat situations...

[webuyhouses]

I'm pretty sure you'll be labelled a "home-grown terrorist bend on havoc" in no time by the media;

I realize that you are 100% correct on this, because the sheeple will never stop to think that spy drones are a military target, thus designing and implementing means to destroy them (at altitude, out of range of directly injuring persons) is contrary to the definition of terrorism! The public will have no fear of being attacked themselves, thus no terror(ism).


The whole goal is to attract LESS surveillance to yourself

The cameras can't see your face if it's buried in the sand:p

Since it's a passive approach, your chances of being detected while airing the balloons are minimal


So, you want me to believe that in a place where you are photographed 300 times a day, no one will take notice of a guy carrying a large duffle bag and 12 helium tanks up to a roof, stretching out a thousand feet of tangled up fishing line, and attaching it to a bunch of balloons which take 10 minutes each to fill? I don't understand how you could get away with that. plus, I doubt you can make such a thing invisible.

A couple of injured or dead soccermoms by crashing/exploding government drones, is only what it takes before public opinion calls for cancelling the surveillance drone project.

With the drones operating at several thousand feet, by the time they reach the ground, there should be nothing but some charred, small pieces, posing little more danger than an sack of garbage tossed out an office window.

[nbk2000]

If you oppose the Government, you'll be labeled a terrorist, regardless of what you do or don't do.

A) If you shot down a drone and it crashed into a hospital, They would say a terrorist missile did it, and They need more police powers to combat the new threat.

B) If it fell in a lake, They would say They shot down a terrorist missile, and They need more police powers to combat the new threat.

So regardless of the disposition of the shot down drone, They'll use it to their advantage.

But you can then catch them up in their own lies!

See, your drone killer has a video transmitter of its own. :)

If A or B, then they would be saying that terrorists are now flying Predator drones? :eek: So much for national security. No way they can explain away the inconsistancy of the video with their statements. :p

[webuyhouses]

Please observe the following:

http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXNA35&P=0

Futaba PA-2 Pilot Assist Link Auto Pilot $50
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x163/webuyhouses/futm0999.jpg
"When You Release The Transmitter Sticks, The PA-2 Automatically Returns
The Aircraft To Level Flight Even If It Enters A Dangerous State
Due To The Effect Of Wind Or Erroneous Operation.
This Simplifies Training In Model Aircraft Flying Techniques."

"Automatically Controls The Elevators and Ailerons, But When The
Modeler Operates A Stick, The Sensitivity Drops According To The
Amount Of Stick Operation and Stick Operation Has Priority."

"Use with a standard Futaba-compatible receiver/radio system"
Weight: 25g
Current Drain: 5mA (at 4.8V)



"Ready to fly in several hours": (complete combo-kit price $360)
http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=LXCAS1
http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x163/webuyhouses/towa1130.jpg

You will want to upgrade to a larger engine to accommodate the weight of a warhead.

There are unlimited ways to modify a model like this to suit your purpose.
I happen to have a few in the basement right now. you can add quite a bit of weight to them, all you need to do is increase the speed. (wheres the downside?:cool: )

[Charles Owlen Picket]

What is often misunderstood is that it is not the crime-scene evidence per se' that is the essence of a prosecutor's case; but the where-abouts of the perpetrators that begin the case. Serving it to a jury begins with What, Who, Where-When, Why, How. Less experienced and arm-chair experts assume that some "non-traceable" bullet, gun, knife, whatever will win the day. That's not a great prescription for a conviction.

Identification, placing the subject in the area, & developing some relationship (the "why" part) of a victim-perpetrator is primary. So much emphasis is placed on weapons or technique that the major issues in selection and effective prosecution (there is no need to put a gun in the hand of the perp for a conviction) is passed over.

The classic penitentiary stabbing is a great example. The perpetrator focuses their attention on protecting ID (before and after the act). The focus in not placed on weather a particular wound could be matched or even if the weapon is discovered after the incident.....that's not as important as the perp not being identified.

The "C.S.I." we see on TV is not what takes place in the overwhelming majority of felony cases. The old-fashioned detective work of What, Who, Where-When, Why, How is utilized. That info is what makes a case.

The incidents that occur where evidence is NOT disturbed are the unique ones. The classic situation is a disturbed crime-scene where hair & fiber evidence is of nearly no value in many cases. But the ID of Last Known Personal Contact becomes primary. This basic concept stretches from grab & run burglary to murder for hire.

[Jacks Complete]

Some useful info:

Who's got them?:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/21/black_helicopters_over_merseyside/

What do they look/sound/fly like?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocflpiu02vQ

How to beat one:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/22/murder_marines_fool_drone/