SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Over a hundred surveillance camera storage devices operated by the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia were hacked just days ahead of the Inauguration. Ransomware was found on some of the devices and officials said the extortion effort "was localized":
Hackers infected 70 percent of storage devices that record data from D.C. police surveillance cameras eight days before President Trump's inauguration, forcing major citywide reinstallation efforts, according to the police and the city's technology office. City officials said ransomware left police cameras unable to record between Jan. 12 and Jan. 15. The cyberattack affected 123 of 187 network video recorders in a closed-circuit TV system for public spaces across the city, the officials said late Friday.
Brian Ebert, a Secret Service official, said the safety of the public or protectees was never jeopardized. Archana Vemulapalli, the city's Chief Technology Officer, said the city paid no ransom and resolved the problem by taking the devices offline, removing all software and restarting the system at each site.
Also at The Hill.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by driven on Monday January 30 2017, @11:02AM
"...the city paid no ransom and resolved the problem by taking the devices offline, removing all software and restarting the system at each site."
Is a patch available to secure the devices against future hacks? Otherwise, the problem is not really resolved.
(Score: 3, Touché) by rts008 on Monday January 30 2017, @12:01PM
What problem?
How else do you expect Team Trump to edit crowd size in future vids? ;-)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday January 30 2017, @12:16PM
Don't be ridiculous. Trump doesn't need to edit photos. He just has to make a statement and reality immediately and automatically reconfigures itself to make the statement true. Any evidence suggestive of reality not conforming to Donald's edicts is due to insufficient denial on the part of the audience.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @12:54PM
I am waiting for him to create the new "Department of History". We can't leave the creation of facts to just anybody....
(Score: 3, Touché) by shrewdsheep on Monday January 30 2017, @03:00PM
It already exists: the ministry of alternative truth. Admittedly, it is informal but for real nevertheless.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Spook brat on Monday January 30 2017, @07:23PM
Since there is no alternative, really, once the Donald has spoken, let's just shorten that to the Ministry of Truth. [wikipedia.org]
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @04:18PM
Will that be under the Department of Re-education?
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Monday January 30 2017, @07:21PM
I assume you mean the Ministry of Love... [wikipedia.org]
I really hope the U.S. government stops using 1984 as a textbook. It's starting to get old.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday January 31 2017, @02:40AM
At least the kids wont have to read it anymore as they'll be living it.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Nerdfest on Monday January 30 2017, @02:01PM
Wow, look at the Flamebait mods. Someone's awfully bitter about people making fun of the madman they elected. The stuff about the crowd sizes is objectively provable, at least let people have some fun with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @03:05PM
TMBs feathers must be ruffled.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday January 30 2017, @09:41PM
Having received a personal message from TMB regarding one of my moderations, I disagree. TMB takes moderation seriously, and would use the +1 Disagree mod instead.
Regardless of his political beliefs, TMB is staff, and from what I have gathered, makes quiet a few positive contributions around here.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MrGuy on Monday January 30 2017, @03:14PM
If both of these statements are true, then the logical conclusion is that the safety of the public is not jeopardized by taking these devices offline.
In other words, even the people who advocate these systems as a non-negotiable component of public safety, and to hell with your privacy concerns, admit we're perfectly safe without them.
But don't worry - they're back online serving their vital function again.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday January 30 2017, @04:24PM
Archana Vemulapalli, the city's Chief Technology Officer, said the city paid no ransom and resolved the problem by taking the devices offline, removing all software and restarting the system at each site.
Nice sentiment via selective omission, but the implication is that the safety of the government officials was the only concern.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday January 30 2017, @04:27PM
Although...how does one "remove all software" from something then restart it? Obviously somebody doesn't know what they're talking about here. Either they wiped the devices then powercycled them, at which point the hardware does nothing; or they reset them to factory settings, probably leaving the vulnerability open; or they overwrote the software with a fixed version.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @06:39PM
The GP has done some very selective editing. However, they do have a point you failed to address by pointing that out. The statement of the police asserted the following two facts:
1) The cameras were disabled for a period of time (due to malware and/or and the restoration efforts).
2) The safety of the public was never in jeopardy.
The implication is that turning cameras off for a while does not put the public in jeopardy.
This leaves out other possibilities (e.g. extra police on the street during the period of time, if cameras are off for x time it is safe but x+1 becomes dangerous, cameras can be off as long as people think they are on, etc). However, on the surface, the logic holds true.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday January 30 2017, @07:47PM
If turning the cameras off does not put the public in jeopardy, then maybe they should just stay turned off.
Thank goodness the 1st amendment forces people to listen to you and agree with you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:10AM
Well no - your argument doesn't hold water because when the fire truck breaks down, you don't drive it to the fire, it won't drive. You still try to serve your populace but when some tools are unavailable you go without until maintenance can happen.
Not that I'm in favour of surveillance. To the contrary, I hope that your incorrect argument isn't repeated as a straw man.