Satellite spy in every vehicle

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
It is the heads buried in the sand that will allow this to become reality.
Don't assume that it will go away - just be vigilant. Remember what GPS
stand for:-
Government - Police - State

You heard it hear first!!!
Peter


 
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 19:01:56 +0100, "Peter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It is the heads buried in the sand that will allow this to become reality.
>Don't assume that it will go away - just be vigilant. Remember what GPS
>stand for:-
>Government - Police - State
>
>You heard it hear first!!!
>Peter
>

No. I've been hearing this crap for years.

Still waiting for a shred of evidence. Just one... No? Thought
not...




--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70
 
> Computerised MOT's are here. I got one the other week on the wifes
> saab.
>
>
> Regards.
> Mark.
> --

Yes, and when I took my Austin-Healey BJ8 in it sent them into a tizz.
They fill in a screen with reg number and vehicle make, but the maker
is a drop down list WITHOUT Austin-Healey. They scratched their heads
for ten minutes, decided to give up and do the MOT anyway and ring
DVLA later, but found that when they aborted the form all the correct
details appeared as if by magic.

AWEM


 
Tim Hobbs wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 19:01:56 +0100, "Peter"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>It is the heads buried in the sand that will allow this to become reality.
>>Don't assume that it will go away - just be vigilant. Remember what GPS
>>stand for:-
>>Government - Police - State
>>
>>You heard it hear first!!!
>>Peter
>>
>
>
> No. I've been hearing this crap for years.
>
> Still waiting for a shred of evidence. Just one... No? Thought
> not...

You must work for Tony! Start with the Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act 2000.
 
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 20:30:15 +0100, Dougal
<DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:

>Tim Hobbs wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 19:01:56 +0100, "Peter"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It is the heads buried in the sand that will allow this to become reality.
>>>Don't assume that it will go away - just be vigilant. Remember what GPS
>>>stand for:-
>>>Government - Police - State
>>>
>>>You heard it hear first!!!
>>>Peter
>>>
>>
>>
>> No. I've been hearing this crap for years.
>>
>> Still waiting for a shred of evidence. Just one... No? Thought
>> not...
>
>You must work for Tony! Start with the Regulation of Investigatory
>Powers Act 2000.

Where does that refer to contracts already awarded?

Where does it specify that the government can stop my car by remote
control?

Looking forward to the references...

I don't like this government, but this bull**** is from the same mould
as the people who thought RFID tags on supermarket products would let
Tony track our movements. The slightest shred of technical knowledge
would show it to be rubbish, but it doesn't stop the Daily Mail
printing it or the general public believing it.


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70
 
so Pete Young was, like...
> On 2005-06-05, Pantelis Giamarellos <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Richard thanks also for the proper spelling of Eschelon. I was sure
>> I have writen it wrong the first time.
>>
>
> It's 'echelon' .
>
> -- Pete

I've seen it spelt both ways, but a web search suggests your spelling is the
more common. <doffs hat>

--
Rich
==============================
Disco 300 Tdi auto
S2a 88" SW
Tiggrr (V8 trialler)


 
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 17:17:13 +0100, Dougal
<DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:

>Peter wrote:
>
>> Just heard on the news that the government are to set up a GPS based system
>> that tracks every vehicle - Speed - direction - position.
>
>> What price human rights and civil liberties now?
>
>That's what I've been saying for ages. Unfortunately the average man in
>the street does not appreciate just what GPS can do. If he/she was aware
>that his/her vehicle could be positioned to within yards and with a
>date/time stamp to within seconds they might realise how vulnerable they
>become. Would you trust the police and Government with that sort of
>information?
>
Who will they get to do the IT?
Going on past form they will choose EDS
If so, you are safe.

--
ColonelTupperware,
spouting bollocks on Usenet since 1997
Usenet FAQ at
http://www.its.caltech.edu/its/services/internetapps/news/news2.shtml
UPCE FAQ at http://upce.org.uk/ UKRM FAQ at http://www.ukrm.net/faq/
 
On 2005-06-06, Tim Hobbs <[email protected]> wrote:

> The slightest shred of technical knowledge would show it to be
> rubbish, but it doesn't stop the Daily Mail printing it or the
> general public believing it.

Indeed, you can always rely on good old-fashioned incompetence to
screw up mass-surveillance attempts.. However if a GPS box is fitted
to cars it almost certainly won't be uploading tracking logs, but in
the event of the police stopping you they'll have some legal mechanism
in place where they'll be able to copy logs off the box in the car for
whatever needs they want.

That's the problem with this kind of technology, you get feature-creep
which the police justify in the same manner that they justify using
anti-terror laws to prevent protests from going ahead. The ID card
system will be the same, it'll go in with promises of safeguards that
will be "justified" into non-existence.

We're not quite orwellian but we're certainly moving in that
direction, very slowly as it takes time for the technology to work and
the atmosphere of justification to catch up with the possibilities.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
 
On 2005-06-05, Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:

> That's what I've been saying for ages. Unfortunately the average man in
> the street does not appreciate just what GPS can do. If he/she was aware
> that his/her vehicle could be positioned to within yards

15 metres with WAAS (or is it 5?), and GPS is easily defeated with
weak jamming or tin foil. Also it's one-way only, you can't transmit
back to the satellites, it's more likely that if transmission was
required it would be done via networks like the mobile phone or pager
networks.

Tracking can be done with cameras like the Trafficmaster cameras,
which have already been used to provide evidence in serious crime
cases. It's a crime to drive without correct plates and they already
check for such things, so I reckon they won't use GPS, they'll just
use Trafficmaster-style cameras on pay-per-mile routes as it's already
harder to defeat those and get away with it than it is to defeat GPS
as there are so many viable excuses available to explain a
non-functioning GPS unit.

Personally I think that the GPS or other satellite system being
bandied about rather vaugely is a smoke screen to make a watered-down
version using different technology more palateable. My money is on
roadside cameras with number plate recognition introduced on major
routes.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
 
On 2005-06-06, Natalie Drest <[email protected]> wrote:

> Isn't it Echelon? There is however a company called Eschelon.

There's a security and risk assessment company called Echelon, I went
for an interview there once and know several people who used to work
there. I think they're in Fleet.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
 
On 2005-06-05, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:

> However those sattelites up there are not going to be around for
> ever and people who rely on GPS ought to realise that they are
> vulnerable to satellite outages.

GPS (if they actually use GPS and not roadside transmitters for
location) relies on very weak signals that are easily swamped, a small
transmitter with an aerial placed near the receiving antenna will be
enough to swamp it. Indeed it'll be trivial to rig up a more powerful
transmitter that can fry the input circuitry, then just drive around
towns zapping cars as you go! I don't see how the system will be
workable.

It's probably a smokescreen for something else, introduce a
controversial plan that's way above what you want, then water it down
to something that you didn't feel would have been accepted in the
first place, and we'll all feel much more comfortable with the watered
down version.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
 
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 22:59:15 +0100, Ian Rawlings <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 2005-06-05, Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> That's what I've been saying for ages. Unfortunately the average man in
>> the street does not appreciate just what GPS can do. If he/she was aware
>> that his/her vehicle could be positioned to within yards
>
>15 metres with WAAS (or is it 5?), and GPS is easily defeated with
>weak jamming or tin foil. Also it's one-way only, you can't transmit
>back to the satellites, it's more likely that if transmission was
>required it would be done via networks like the mobile phone or pager
>networks.
>
>Tracking can be done with cameras like the Trafficmaster cameras,
>which have already been used to provide evidence in serious crime
>cases. It's a crime to drive without correct plates and they already
>check for such things, so I reckon they won't use GPS, they'll just
>use Trafficmaster-style cameras on pay-per-mile routes as it's already
>harder to defeat those and get away with it than it is to defeat GPS
>as there are so many viable excuses available to explain a
>non-functioning GPS unit.
>
>Personally I think that the GPS or other satellite system being
>bandied about rather vaugely is a smoke screen to make a watered-down
>version using different technology more palateable. My money is on
>roadside cameras with number plate recognition introduced on major
>routes.

There's already been a long process of tendering for pilots in Leeds
and Edinburgh, abandoned due to electoral timing some years ago. That
was designed to evaluate various technologies.

However, number plate recognition is now commonplace and well-proven
and requires sod all to be installed in the vehicle. The difficulty
is that in order to give reduced fuel tax you'd have to cover enough
of the network to have all the major routes tolled. The congestion
implications for nearby non-tolled routes could be disastrous though.

It's hard to visualise it happening in the next 10 years. It's
another Labour smokescreen to make the actual plan less controversial
when they unveil it.





--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70
 
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 22:59:15 +0100, Ian Rawlings wrote:

> My money is on roadside cameras with number plate recognition
> introduced on major routes.

Which they alreday have. Very much live and computer linked at ports
and "traffic monitoring" is growing on major routes now. Look for
green rather than dark blue "trafficmaster" look a like cameras. Quite
often co sited.

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail



 
I daresay there are counter measure that will say you are simultaneosly in
Timbukto and atop Everest.

Everything in security falls apart with the insecurity of the computers and
what you can alter.

That is the huge joke with the identity card system as well, because
biometric shmetrics, someone is gonna get into the computers and create
false identities to match, never mind that when you go to have your Iris
scanned, what will they use to establish your identity ? false papers, why
not .......


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes


"Ian Rawlings" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2005-06-05, Dougal <DougalAThiskennel.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > That's what I've been saying for ages. Unfortunately the average man in
> > the street does not appreciate just what GPS can do. If he/she was aware
> > that his/her vehicle could be positioned to within yards
>
> 15 metres with WAAS (or is it 5?), and GPS is easily defeated with
> weak jamming or tin foil. Also it's one-way only, you can't transmit
> back to the satellites, it's more likely that if transmission was
> required it would be done via networks like the mobile phone or pager
> networks.
>
> Tracking can be done with cameras like the Trafficmaster cameras,
> which have already been used to provide evidence in serious crime
> cases. It's a crime to drive without correct plates and they already
> check for such things, so I reckon they won't use GPS, they'll just
> use Trafficmaster-style cameras on pay-per-mile routes as it's already
> harder to defeat those and get away with it than it is to defeat GPS
> as there are so many viable excuses available to explain a
> non-functioning GPS unit.
>
> Personally I think that the GPS or other satellite system being
> bandied about rather vaugely is a smoke screen to make a watered-down
> version using different technology more palateable. My money is on
> roadside cameras with number plate recognition introduced on major
> routes.
>
> --
> For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert


 
On 2005-06-07, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:

> That is the huge joke with the identity card system as well, because
> biometric shmetrics, someone is gonna get into the computers and create
> false identities to match,

An area of security that's not been investigated enough is ways to
fake biometrics, some work has been done but not enough, it's
something I would like to research if my career goes the way I want it
to in the next few months.

Researching the ID card could be difficult because the government is
basically making interfering with it it illegal, meaning that only
criminals will have the resources they need to probe it as honest
researchers like myself won't be able to get company funding to
perform a basically illegal act.

They never think these things through very well.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
 
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 20:07:48 +0100, Ian Rawlings <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 2005-06-07, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That is the huge joke with the identity card system as well, because
>> biometric shmetrics, someone is gonna get into the computers and create
>> false identities to match,
>
>An area of security that's not been investigated enough is ways to
>fake biometrics, some work has been done but not enough, it's
>something I would like to research if my career goes the way I want it
>to in the next few months.
>
>Researching the ID card could be difficult because the government is
>basically making interfering with it it illegal, meaning that only
>criminals will have the resources they need to probe it as honest
>researchers like myself won't be able to get company funding to
>perform a basically illegal act.
>
>They never think these things through very well.

I believe fingerprint readers have already been cracked, although
whether this is all technologies or one specific system I couldn't
say. As we become more and more dependent on biometrics the prize for
fakers gets higher and the criminals will put more and more effort
into cracking it.


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70
 
On 2005-06-07, Tim Hobbs <[email protected]> wrote:

> I believe fingerprint readers have already been cracked, although
> whether this is all technologies or one specific system I couldn't
> say.

It's a mix. Some capacitive readers (solid state ones on things like
laptops and USB keys) can be fooled just by breathing on them, others
need more work, e.g. photographic etching of a fingerprint into a fake
finger (all doable with stuff from stores like Maplin). Some have
their tolerances so low to ensure that they "work" and don't keep
rejecting people that they are easily fooled. It depends on the
individual device and the market it's aimed at.

Iris recognition is one of the best cheap technologies, fingerprint
technology isn't very good as a machine doesn't do as good a job as a
trained human at recognising a damaged or greasy print. Manual
workers or people who've just had lunch often cause problems for
fingerprint readers.

Also there's a difference between whether a reader is used to
authenticate someone or identify someone, i.e. enter a username and
verify using a fingerprint (authenticate mode), or put your
fingerprint on a scanner without a username and it identifies you and
logs you in (identify mode). Using a typical fingerprint scanner's
error rate, I calculated that with a database of 1,000 users a scanner
working in identify mode would log you into the wrong account 10% of
the time. With 10,000 users you'd be lucky to get the right account!

> As we become more and more dependent on biometrics the prize for
> fakers gets higher and the criminals will put more and more effort
> into cracking it.

The best thing about faking biometrics is that the fake will usually
work over a wide range of devices. If your iris or fingerprint is
faked, how do you change it? It's not like changing a password.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Re: Satellite spy in every vehicle
Replies
2
Views
535
Mother
M
A
Re: Satellite spy in every vehicle
Replies
2
Views
570
Larry
L
L
Re: Satellite spy in every vehicle
Replies
1
Views
479
Paul S. Brown
P
B
Re: Satellite spy in every vehicle
Replies
4
Views
636
AndyC the WB
A
L
Re: Satellite spy in every vehicle
Replies
0
Views
469
Larry
L
Back
Top