
South Korean cam-hunter squads conduct electronic sweeps of public spaces - pmoriarty
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/south-korea-spy-cams-metoo-sexual-harassment-ahn-hee-jung-a8470771.html
======
yorwba
> though there are scores of such teams nationwide, police officials say none
> has ever found a camera – but perhaps that is not the point.

...

> Last month, the province’s police force received about $267,000 (£203,000)
> to focus on the problem, according to local police official Chae Kyoung-
> deok.

...

> despite the focus on hidden cameras, 90 per cent of the crimes involved
> filming with regular smartphones, statistics show.

This is seems to be similar to terrorism, in that the fear of the problem is
much bigger than the problem itself, and because attacking the root causes is
too difficult, most of the effort is spent on useless security theater.

~~~
justaguyhere
Even if they did find something, are they going to keep checking every single
day forever? While it is good they are trying, problems like these can only be
solved by changing the societal mindset and raising boys to be better men

~~~
SiempreViernes
Until someone posts a video of one of these teams missing a hidden camera they
provide a real sense of security to women that can't really be provided in
other ways.

~~~
yjftsjthsd-h
Isn't it a _false_ sense of security?

~~~
forthefuture
It's the opposite. A false sense of security is feeling safe when it isn't
safe. In this case, it is safe, but people mistakenly feel unsafe.

The police are providing a real sense of security that both represents the
actual security and the peoples' feeling of security.

------
kbumsik
All smartphones sold in Korea are required to make shutter sound when taking a
photo, to prevent spy cam using a phone in a public place. If you buy an
iPhone in Korea there is no way to turn it off.

~~~
chillacy
There was an article on HN about a dev who played the inverse shutter sound
when taking a photo, which would destructively interfere with the OS camera
sound (this was iOS) before being output by the speakers, resulting in no
audible sound.

~~~
codedokode
It can be fixed by adding little randomness into builtin shutter sound. Or by
adding a LED that is physically connected with camera voltage supply.

~~~
jerf
A better fix is for the camera to take full control of the audio output for
the duration. It can override volume and such while it's at it.

It's still kinda a stopgap, though. If one is a dedicated creeper, opening a
cell phone and disabling a speaker is intro-level electronics hacking, hardly
even worthy of the term. I mean, I've _accidentally_ disabled the speaker on
my laptop once because I sealed it up after a hard drive swapout and simply
forgot to hook the tiny speaker wires back up afterwards.

------
al_ramich
Wonder if there is a way to have a device that can detect whether you are
being recorded. Is that even possible, if yes, that would be a good idea for
someone to build? Would make lots of cash given the current climate of concern
(especially for kids). Interesting article on this topic
[https://mashable.com/2017/12/04/airbnb-host-spying-
webcam/](https://mashable.com/2017/12/04/airbnb-host-spying-webcam/)

~~~
NickNameNick
Some sensors (CCDs, i think) are strong retro-reflectors. So you could detect
possible cameras with a strobe light and some more cameras.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
And their camera (array) detects yours and tries to disable it ... we're going
to need lasers (sharks optional).

------
DoctorOetker
just mandate image sensor manufacturers to include a resonant structure, to
aid detection? then its a matter of time before old image sensors start to
fail or get replaced...

------
codedokode
I think that buying or posessing a hidden camera should be illegal. So that
police could arrest people only for ordering such device. Also, there should
be a punishment for porn site owners who host such videos. They should check
the documents and verify that video is taken with permission from models.

~~~
jerf
30 years ago that might have worked, when "hidden camera" was arguably a
distinct category of device. But every cell phone has a camera in it that 30
years ago would have been government spy level tech, and it's not hard to buy
the cameras alone or with minimal supporting electronics for perfectly
reasonable reasons, and anything that fits in a cell phone is also small
enough to be easy to hide. Even an old cell phone is not that hard to make
into a "hidden camera", honestly, body and all. Here's a CNET article on the
basic principles, just to show how mainstream this tech all is:
[https://www.cnet.com/how-to/turn-your-old-phone-into-a-
home-...](https://www.cnet.com/how-to/turn-your-old-phone-into-a-home-
security-camera/) It takes only modest creativity to hide that fairly well.

There isn't a such thing as a "hidden camera" as a distinct product any more
to be banned.

------
nasredin
...while in California you almost have to stay indoors if you are to avoid
seeing scantily clad - sometimes a bit too young - women!

------
mbrumlow
Probably a unpopular view / idea. But if we just took the tabo out of being
nude... It would resolve the issue 2 fold, people would not be afraid of being
seen nude, and the drive for people wanting to take pictures of people nude
would go down too.

There once was a time a ankle showing, then it was the knee was taboo too.

Remember we were all born nude, and the idea that being nude is taught.

I have a meeting, wanted to say more, but no time, sorry. TTL!

~~~
Nightshaxx
This is a pretty big privacy invasion and privacy is something very valuable
to people. Our browsing activity doesn't seem like a big deal, but when
companies are taking away our privacy and using it to create ads, a lot of
people care! The big problem is that people have their privacy and personal
space bubble, and if you reach into it they will be very angry.

------
miguelrochefort
This is not a sustainable solution.

What will happen when cameras become as small as a grain of rice, and drones
become as small as a fly?

This is the end of privacy. We should embrace it, rather than fight it.

------
meshr
I guess better copyright enforcement may help. They should also read about
deepfakes and stop thinking that filming once body itself is already a serious
crime. It matters how that info is used. Homosapien personality is not his
body but his brain.

PS: Ironically another news on that page says “Women stage topless protest
over Facebook ‘discrimination’ Did police arrest everyone who filmed this? Did
police arrest these women for five years in prison for using their body as a
weapon? Is it ok for the same woman to appear in both these news?

~~~
UntitledNo4
"stop thinking that filming once body is serious crime."

Firstly, the article is not talking about taking pictures of women on the
street but rather in changing rooms and locker rooms, which is a crime.
Second, even if you would be comfortable if someone took a picture of you
naked without your knowledge and posted it online doesn't mean that other
women and men are.

"Is it ok for the same woman to appear in both these news?"

Yes. It was her decision to pose topless in public, and it doesn't give anyone
the right to spy on her in privacy and take pictures of her.

~~~
meshr
> changing rooms and locker rooms

But it is kind of public place too. What if you open it by mistake with google
glass on? 5 years in prison? What if another woman there receives video call?
5 years in prison? What if some stupid child does it? What if hackers or
sneaky woman intentionally put such shots on your phone and call police?

>if someone took a picture of you

I’m not comfortable with it too. But I don’t think it is more criminal than
piracy. I don’t want that police restrict cameras anyway because of it. I want
the police to protect copyright better

>It was her decision to pose topless in public

So the subject for protection is not her body itself but her power to define
how to “sell” it? Isn’t it prostitution? They should make prostitution legal
first then.

~~~
codedokode
Let's say that you work for the government and accidentally read top secret
documents with your Google Glass on and accidentally upload the recording to
Youtube. Would it be a good excuse? And of course other people's privacy is
much more important than those documents that are boring and uninteresting to
99% of people.

So of course the use of cameras should be regulated.

~~~
meshr
I can’t accidentally read top secret because it is secured much better than
public places. I can’t disclose it by mistake. Its guards don’t expose it when
they want to protest. People privacy can’t be more important than government
documents, because protecting each citizen is much more complex/pricy task
than protecting those documents. Disclosing those documents is a problem for
all citizens. Disclosing citizen privacy is a problem for him. You can’t
restrict good willing citizen rights because of bad guys.

