‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Hackers Got Inside a Flock Camera

586 points · 270 comments · driverdan

  1. petcat · · focus · HN ↗
    > According to our analysis, the camera’s logs recorded about 21 days of activity across several periods. During those windows, the device photographed roughly 50,200 vehicles and generated about 1.6 million images. On a typical day, it logged around 3,300 vehicles, with a high of 4,454.

    Has there been any report about which state this camera was recovered in? New Hampshire has a strict 3 minute rule for non-hit plate data before the captured images and records must be deleted [1].

    [1] (N.H. Rev. Stat. § 261:75-b) requires ALPR systems to delete non-hit plate data within 3 minutes

    1. Grimeton · · focus · HN ↗
      The images were deleted the moment they were uploaded. But the record in the log files persisted. The camera doesn't have enough memory to store that many data.
      1. petcat · · focus · HN ↗
        > The images were deleted the moment they were uploaded.

        ???

        > VIII. Records of number plates read by each LPR shall not be recorded or transmitted anywhere and shall be purged from the system within 3 minutes of their capture [...]

        But you're saying that these non-hit image captures were uploaded somewhere?

        1. Grimeton · · focus · HN ↗
          - Camera takes picture

          - Camera pre-checks the picture for quality and that there's something on there that they want

          - Camera uploads picture to flock servers

          - Camera deletes picture locally

          - Rinse and repeat

          I could actually see this being done by three jobs in parallel.

          If there are a lot of images found on the camera then that's probably because the upload wasn't able to keep up with the amount of data that was created or they have a buffer of a few days or there's a cronjob that deletes these files every now and then...

          Unless they actually use the camera also as the storage, which would be really stupid, but sometimes people to stupid things.

          1. petcat · · focus · HN ↗
            It sounds like this whole thing is just in violation of New Hampshire state law.
            1. Grimeton · · focus · HN ↗
              IANAL. So that's something I cannot tell.
            2. nonethewiser · · focus · HN ↗
              But was this in New Hampshire? The retention policy is set by the customer.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.