this post was submitted on 04 May 2026
60 points (96.9% liked)

Technology

84324 readers
6407 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
60
A hacker built a tool to track police officers. Then he tried to warn them (www.abc.net.au)
submitted 7 hours ago by Deep@mander.xyz to c/technology@lemmy.world
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

"I think it comes down to either incompetence or laziness … it just seems like the engineers who developed this were either ignorant or incompetent," he said"

Nah, I'm sure the engineers knew, or were too incompetent

As per usual, it's management who pushed for such tight development schedules that they didn't have the time to do it right while at the same time offering so little money they could only attract idiots who only know half of what they should.

I fucking guarantee you that is the core of the problem

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago

Standard operating procedure. Every engineer knows the old rule: On time, On Budget, Done right; pick 2. No one ever picks option 3, public or private.

[–] deliriousdreams@fedia.io 1 points 2 hours ago

They definitely knew because later on in the article the writer acknowledges that in the fine print of their TOS or EULA or whatever they mention that the fact that you can't turn off the broadcasting is a "security consideration".

[–] Encephalotrocity@feddit.online 32 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Hacker? Not a hacker. This information is broadcast openly.

TIL if(wireless_signal=OR("tazer","bodycam"),"Police Detected", ) is hacking.

[–] callouscomic@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 hours ago

Reminds me of 15 years ago.

  • friend left phone unlocked
  • post something insane to their facebook
  • "I hacked you!"
[–] lost_faith@lemmy.ca 24 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I learned a while ago that clicking around on a web site and accidentally wandering into an area that is supposed to be secure but isn't is hacking as well

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 3 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

That literally is hacking, though. Poking around until you find a vulnerability.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago

I don’t think any jury in the world would call clicking on links literally hacking. When I read poking around, that is what I think of. And their point is that if you click on a link that takes you to a secure area because of bad security, it is defined as hacking by the law in some jurisdictions. This is because those laws don't describe the action, they simply say "accessing" certain data. Which is lame.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 9 minutes ago)

So a chess player that exploits an opponent’s weakness is hacking?
A snake that finds an entrance to a gopher burrow is hacking?

“Finding vulnerabilities” is the kind of dangerously overbroad generalization that gave us the DMCA.

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 24 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

It's true and a real thing, but its also just a BS excuse to push for removal of body cameras.

[–] Arkhive@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 hours ago

If I’m remembering correctly, the data on body cams actually shows they don’t help with police accountability much at all, and instead just serve as additional surveillance of already over policed communities. Like I’m pretty sure they haven’t reduced rates of police violence. I’ll try to find the paper I read about this, but basically giving police more technology isn’t the solution, abolishing them is.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Couple of sensationalized things. Undercover cops aren't carrying a body cam or taser. That would be easy to spot in person.
Next bluetooth is short range. You gotta be decently close. Like 25 feet give or take.
Commentary, of course the company was lazy. It costs money to add the feature to rotate mac addresses.

[–] deliriousdreams@fedia.io 3 points 2 hours ago

Depends on the situation. They might not carry it into undercover situations but may have one sitting at home or in their take home vehicle. That's just as dangerous if a criminal follows them and has the app.

[–] random_character_a@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago

With a proper custom antenna you can track bluetooth devices from larger distances

[–] echo@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

How is it able to get the latitude and longitude of the devices? As far as I’m aware, the bluetooth spec doesn’t provide coordinates as part of its metadata. And you’d need some kind of triangulation method otherwise. I’m certainly not able to get the coordinates of my bluetooth devices. Wish I could, would make finding the remote a lot easier.

[–] unitedwithme@lemmy.today 3 points 5 hours ago

Maybe as a network scanner, because I know for "high accuracy" Android, for example, scans GPS, WiFi, and Bluetooth in combination to help determine better accuracy of location. If it picks up a store WiFi it's going to know you're within 100ft. Or some car has a built-in hotspot that either found. Not 100%sure without looking into it further, just speculation.

[–] Samsy@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 hours ago

Didn't read, is he dead? The term "tried" makes me anxious.