A Maryland Transit Administration decision to record the conversations of bus drivers and passengers to investigate crimes, accidents and poor customer service has come under attack from privacy advocates and state lawmakers who say it may go too far.
The first 10 buses — marked with signs to alert passengers to the open microphones — began service this week in Baltimore, and officials expect to expand that to 340 buses, about half the fleet, by next summer. Microphones are incorporated in the video surveillance system that has been in place for years.
“We want to make sure people feel safe, and this builds up our arsenal of tools to keep our patrons safe,” said Ralign Wells, MTA administrator. “The audio completes the information package for investigators and responders.”
Wells said the system was deemed legal by the state attorney general’s office and letters were sent to the American Civil Liberties Union and the union representing bus drivers informing them of the initiative. A spokesman for the attorney general’s office confirmed that transit officials were advised by their counsel that based on a 2000 appeals court decision, the audio recordings did not violate the state wiretapping law.
But an ACLU lawyer said he was “flabbergasted” that MTA officials would try to record people’s conversations under the guise of a pilot program after a similar proposal was rejected in 2009 by the state’s highest-ranking transportation official and by the General Assembly on three occasions.
“People don’t want or need to have their private conversations recorded by MTA as a condition of riding a bus,” said David Rocah, a staff attorney with the Maryland chapter of the ACLU. “A significant number of people have no viable alternative to riding a bus, and they should not be forced to give up their privacy rights.”
Wells said a digital recorder similar to an aviation black box and capable of storing 30 days of audio and video information is locked in an equipment box on each MTA bus. In the event of an accident, an incident involving passengers or a complaint against a driver, investigators can remove the recorder and download the file for review.
The cost is negligible, Wells said, since the six cameras inside each bus are capable of recording audio and all new buses will have audio-video systems as standard equipment.
MTA police dispatchers receive 45 to 100 daily calls for assistance from bus drivers for everything from an unhappy rider to criminal activity, said Capt. Burna McCollum, commander of the MTA police technical services division.
Video is a critical tool for investigators sorting out the details of an incident, but when witnesses walk away, are reluctant to cooperate or give conflicting accounts, an audio recording can fill in missing information, McCollum said.
Surveillance policies in the region vary widely. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority use security cameras on their buses but draw the line at audio recordings of passengers. Montgomery County’s 335-bus Ride On system is about to add audio surveillance to its video capability. Baltimore’s nearly three-year-old Circulator buses record both video and audio.
Two members of the state Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee say the MTA’s decision to record passengers without their consent is troubling.
“It’s an end run and ripe for a court challenge,” said Sen. James Brochin, a Baltimore County Democrat. “They have absolutely no grounds to do this. If we can’t get them to listen and change their minds, we’ll deal with this … and make them defend what’s indefensible.”
Sen. Jamie Raskin, a Montgomery County Democrat and a constitutional law expert, said that while he understands the need to protect public transportation customers, “this sounds kind of Big Brotherish to me.”
Raskin said bus patrons should have been consulted, and a clear policy on who has access to the recordings and how long they are kept should have been spelled out to the public before the program was initiated.
“This is such a giant step forward in dissolving the privacy expectations of people who ride the bus,” he said. “Legislators are going to want to know what the compelling reason is for initiating this now.”
In 2009, the acting secretary of the Maryland Department of Transportation derailed a similar MTA proposal and asked for more review, calling privacy matters “the ultimate test of people’s trust in government.”
In each of the last three legislative sessions, bills filed on behalf of MTA to authorize recording devices and establish ground rules for their use were rejected in committee.
“When House and Senate committees individually look at a proposal and nearly unanimously reject it, you know it’s bad public policy,” Brochin said.
But one of the bills’ sponsors, Del. Melvin Stukes, an MTA customer service investigator, said state officials have been “gun-shy” in dealing with the ACLU and unions. The intent of the legislation, he said, was to eliminate bad language that often sparks violence.
“This is not your bathroom. This is not your bedroom. Buses are public spaces and people are elbow to elbow,” Stukes said. “I’m not trying to punish people. I’m just trying to clean up problems I hear about every day so that people realize that MTA is trying to provide a more congenial, more cordial ride.”
The chairman of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee predicts that the entire matter will have to be resolved by the legislature.
“If this is something that’s necessary and useful, standards must be set for oversight and accountability,” said Sen. Brian Frosh, a Montgomery County Democrat. “The job of figuring this out definitely should not be left to the agency doing the listening.”
SUTTONS BAY — A settlement agreement that ended a long-running and acrimonious lawsuit against top Leelanau County sheriff’s officials will be public in a matter of weeks, authorities said.
Leelanau County’s Board of Commissioners recently voted to settle a federal lawsuit filed against the county, Sheriff Mike Oltersdorf and Undersheriff Scott Wooters by a group of deputies in 2009. The deputies accused Oltersdorf and Wooters of eavesdropping, among other misconduct.
County officials won’t reveal settlement terms, but county Administrator Chet Janik said financial and other details will be available once attorneys file the final agreement with court.
“That document will be public,” he said. “I’m guessing it will probably be about six weeks.”
The board voted 5-1 to accept the settlement, with Melinda Lautner dissenting and David Marshall absent.
Janik said the county is happy to finally close the doors on the suit.
“Everyone is glad it’s been resolved,” Janik said. “It’s been a long process for all sides, and it’s caused tremendous stress on all sides.”
Lautner said she believed settling was a “disservice” to the county.
“My vote, I thought, was in the best interest of not only my constituents, but all of the taxpayers,” she said. “There’s just a lot of information we received in closed session that the public was not aware of that would have come to light had it gone to trial.”
Trial was scheduled to start next week, and Janik said the county’s insurance company advised the county to settle, rather than risk losing at trial.
“It was a very difficult choice for commissioners, as they have some strong feelings about it,” he said.
The suit stems from allegations that Oltersdorf and Wooters illegally listened to conversations on what employees believed to be private lines at the sheriff’s department on several occasions dating to 2006. Sheriff’s administrators then retaliated against employees who publicly criticized the practice, the suit alleged.
Oltersdorf and Wooters both declined comment. Mike Dettmer, an attorney for the deputies, also declined comment.
Lee Price hid device behind pipe in toilet so he could watch women
Admitted planting the ÂŁ30 camera after it was discovered by an employee
Pervert was jailed for six months after being found guilty of voyeurism
By
Sam Adams
Voyeur: Lee Price, 36, was jailed after using a secret camera pen to spy on female employees as they used the toilet
A factory boss has been jailed after using a hidden camera ‘spy’ pen to film female employees as they used the toilet.
Lee Price, 36, bought the device to secretly watch his young staff as they used the lavatory at the Odeon Furniture Factory in Tredegar, Gwent – where he was production manager.
He tucked the pen, which was bought over the internet, at the back of a pipe in the toilet at the plant.
A court heard how Price set up the hidden camera half a dozen times over the space of three months.
But it was finally found after a woman employee spotted a light flashing on the pen after she had used the toilet.
She realised there was a pinhole camera in the top of the pen – and twisted it open to find a memory stick inside.
She took it to a local computer store where they discovered the USB stick contained 14 minutes of movie footage.
Notices were put up appealing for information at the Odeon Furniture Factory in Tredegar, Gwent.
Price handed himself in – admitting he had rigged up the secret spy pen bought for less than ÂŁ30 on the internet.
Prosecutor Lisa James said: ‘At
first, Price said it was to try and catch a cleaner who he suspected of
hiding there to avoid her duties.
‘But he changed his story, saying he
was trying to spy on a woman and record her texting or phoning a man he
suspected she was having an affair with.’
Price, of Blaina, Gwent, was jailed for six months at Caerphilly magistrates after being found guilty of voyeurism.
Michael
Hall, defending, said: ‘He is deeply embarrassed and ashamed about
this. He accepts that he has caused deep humiliation and anger for all
those concerned.
‘This has been deeply disturbing for his family but they are standing by him knowing what he has done.’
He later resigned from the factory where he worked for 16 years.
Secret: Price positioned a camera ‘spy’ pen (similar to this one) behind a pipe in the toilet (file picture)
District Judge Richard Williams told him: ‘You were trying to gratify your perverted sexual lust.
‘The effect on the women you filmed is considerable. The word ‘horror’ was used by one when she found out.
‘In some ways this is more instructive than a sexual act – going to the toilet is something people expect to do in private. These were graphic moving images.
‘Your evidence was a pack of lies. Because of your perverted wish to gain sexual gratification, you invaded women’s privacy.’
COUNCIL WORKER USED HIDDEN CAMERA TO FILM UP WOMEN’S SKIRTS
Pervert: Christopher Hardie arriving at Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court
A council worker who spied on female colleagues by installing a hidden camera to peer up their skirts has been jailed for 16 months.
Christopher Hardie, 51, set up recording equipment under his desk at Stoke-on-Trent Council’s environmental services department where he worked so that he could secretly film his workmates.
Hardie was found out when one shocked co-worker found the device. After his arrest earlier this year it was later discovered that ‘obsessed’ Hardie had been filming female colleagues for his own sexual gratification for at least five months.
He was jailed for 16-months on Thursday after admitting eight counts of voyeurism – which also included installing cameras at a house between 2008 and 2012. He must also sign the Sex Offenders’ Register for 10 years.
The court heard Hardie threw the
camera in a canal after being uncovered by colleagues while other
equipment was found in skips at the site.
Memory cards, USB sticks and three camcorders were also found at his home.
The court heard Hardie, from Stafford, had been kicked out of his family home since the allegations came to light.
Jailing Hardie, Judge Granville Styler said: ‘I understand the devastating effect this has had on you. You have lost your job and family.
‘But these are serious matters which give the public and victims great discomfort.
‘It was a series of offences which took considerable planning. You have an obsession that gives you sexual gratification.’
Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court had heard that Hardie’s actions had impacted on council staff – leaving them feeling humiliated.
In a statement, one victim said: ‘This will be with me for life. Words can’t explain the embarrassment and the mental anguish. I now only feel safe in my own home.’
Security firm Kaspersky Lab recently announced the discovery of miniFlame, a small and highly flexible malicious program designed to steal data and control infected systems during targeted cyber espionage operations.
Comparison of miniFlame with other malicious programs
miniFlame, also known as SPE, was found by Kaspersky Lab’s experts in July 2012, and was originally identified as a Flame module.
However, in September 2012, Kaspersky Lab’s research team conducted an in-depth analysis of Flame’s command control servers (CC) and from the analysis found that the miniFlame module was actually an interoperable tool that could be used as an independent malicious program, or concurrently as plug-in for both the Flame and Gauss malware.
Analysis of miniFlame showed there were several versions created between 2010 and 2011, with some variants still being active in the wild.
The analysis also revealed new evidence of the cooperation between the creators of Flame and Gauss, as both malicious programs can use miniFlame as a “plug-in” for their operations.
Main findings:
• miniFlame, also known as SPE, is based on the same architectural platform as Flame. It can function as its own independent cyber espionage program or as a component inside both Flame and Gauss.
• The cyber espionage tool operates as a backdoor designed for data theft and direct access to infected systems.
• Development of miniFlame might have started as early as 2007 and continued until the end of 2011. Many variations are presumed to be created. To date, Kaspersky Lab has identified six of these variants, covering two major generations: 4.x and 5.x.
• Unlike Flame or Gauss, which had high number of infections, the amount of infections for miniFlame is much smaller. According to Kaspersky Lab’s data, the number of infections is between 10-20 machines. The total number of infections worldwide is estimated at 50-60.
• The number of infections combined with miniFlame’s info-stealing features and flexible design indicate it was used for extremely targeted cyber-espionage operations, and was most likely deployed inside machines that were already infected by Flame or Gauss.
Discovery
The discovery of miniFlame occurred during the in-depth analysis of the Flame and Gauss malware.
In July 2012 Kaspersky Lab’s experts identified an additional module of Gauss, codenamed “John” and found references to the same module in Flame’s configuration files.
The subsequent analysis of Flame’s command and control servers, conducted in September 2012, helped to reveal that the newly discovered module was in fact a separate malicious program, although it can be used as a “plug-in” by both Gauss and Flame. miniFlame was codenamed SPE in the code of Flame’s original CC servers.
Kaspersky Lab discovered six different variations of miniFlame, all dating back to 2010-2011.
At the same time, the analysis of miniFlame points to even earlier date when development of the malware was commenced – not later than 2007. miniFlame’s ability to be used as a plug-in by either Flame or Gauss clearly connects the collaboration between the development teams of both Flame and Gauss.
Since the connection between Flame and Stuxnet/Duqu has already been revealed, it can be concluded that all these advanced threats come from the same “cyber warfare” factory.
Functionality
The original infection vector of miniFlame is yet to be determined. Given the confirmed relationship between miniFlame, Flame, and Gauss, miniFlame may be installed on machines already infected by Flame or Gauss.
Once installed, miniFlame operates as a backdoor and enables the malware operators to obtain any file from an infected machine.
Additional info-stealing capabilities include making screenshots of an infected computer while it’s running a specific program or application in such as a web browser, Microsoft Office program, Adobe Reader, instant messenger service, or an FTP client.
miniFlame uploads the stolen data by connecting to its CC server (which may be unique, or “shared” with Flame’s CCs). Separately, at the request from miniFlame’s CC operator, an additional data-stealing module can be sent to an infected system, which infects USB drives and uses them to store data that’s collected from infected machines without an internet connection.
Alexander Gostev, chief security expert at Kaspersky Lab, said “miniFlame is a high precision attack tool. Most likely it is a targeted cyberweapon used in what can be defined as the second wave of a cyberattack.
“First, Flame or Gauss are used to infect as many victims as possible to collect large quantities of information. After data is collected and reviewed, a potentially interesting victim is defined and identified, and miniFlame is installed in order to conduct more in-depth surveillance and cyber-espionage.
“The discovery of miniFlame also gives us additional evidence of the cooperation between the creators of the most notable malicious programs used for cyber warfare operations: Stuxnet, Duqu, Flame and Gauss.”
October 2006: Bryan Wagner, right, stands next to Matthew DePante and Ronald DeLia, in a San Jose, California, courtroom. Photo: AP/Paul Sakuma
The final chapter in the pretexting scandal that rocked Hewlett-Packard, once one of Silicon Valley’s most esteemed companies, is drawing to a close.
Bryan Wagner is getting set to be sentenced in federal court in San Jose, California. He’s the low-level private investigator who was charged with pretending to be a Wall Street Journal reporter in order to obtain telephone records. This sort of illegal false identify scheme is known as pretexting.
His sentencing hearing is set for Nov. 1, but after nearly six years of delays, it’s likely to be put off yet again. The reason? Wagner pleaded guilty so long ago that the Probation Office’s pre-sentence report is now out of date, and the judge has ordered an update.
HP was once considered the gold standard of high technology companies, but the pretexting scandal shadowed the tech giant’s precipitous fall from grace. In fact, HP seems to have done nothing but stumble since the incident, which stemmed from HP Chairwoman Patricia Dunn’s ill-advised efforts to stop boardroom leaks to journalists. The company has cycled through two CEOs since the scandal — Mark Hurd and Leo Apotheker — and it continues to see its business prospects shrink. Last month, HP said it planned to lay off nearly 30,000 employees over the next two years.
Although Dunn did at one point face criminal prosecution, the charges against her were eventually dropped. She died last year. No HP executive has been convicted of any criminal activity in the case.
The company did pay a $14.5 million fine to the state of California, but that’s a “pretty light” punishment, given the wrongdoing, says Terry Gross, a San Francisco attorney who represented reporters who were victims of the pretexting. “HP is an incredibly wealthy company,” he says. “$14.5 million is almost nothing to it.”
The wheels of justice have also moved pretty slowly. The case has switched prosecutors in the years since the California Attorney General, and then ultimately the U.S. Department of Justice took an interest in the matter.
Although the scandal captured the national spotlight for a time and even prompted a Congressional investigation, “It has ended with less a bang than a whimper,” said one person familiar with the case who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Wagner pleaded guilty to conspiracy and aggravated identity theft charges nearly six years ago, but his sentencing has been postponed as the court has finished up cases against the two men who hired him: Joseph DePante and his son Mathew DePante. They were sentenced in July to three years of probation and six months of electronic monitoring.
The DePantes pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges, but with the aggravated identity theft count, Wagner is facing a tougher go of things. Aggravated identity theft comes with a minimum two-year prison sentence.
Representatives from the DePantes’ company, Action Research Group, faxed Wagner and others the social security numbers of the pretexting victims and then Wagner and a business associate Cassandra Selvage actually called up the telephone companies to obtain phone records, according to Joseph and Matthew Depante’s plea agreements.
Action Research Group grossed between $20,000 and $30,000 in the scheme, the plea agreements state.
In 2006, after learning that he could be the subject of a criminal investigation, Wagner allegedly took his a hammer to his computer and “destroyed,” his hard drive, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.
Through his lawyer, Federal Public Defender Cynthia Lie, Wagner declined to comment for this story. Spokesmen for the U.S. Department of Justice did not return messages seeking comment for this story.
