Geotagging poses security risks | Hacker News Reader

Geotagging poses security risks

army.mil

36 pointsdmmalam23 comments

I was looking for more information/sources on the mortar attack. This DefenseTech article has a little more context in general and an example of geolocation using cell signals:

http://defensetech.org/2012/03/15/insurgents-used-cell-phone...

Unfortunately the only source for the mortar attack is the army.mil article linked here. Does anyone know more about the attack?

"When a new fleet of helicopters arrived with an aviation unit at a base in Iraq, some Soldiers took pictures on the flightline, he said. From the photos that were uploaded to the Internet, the enemy was able to determine the exact location of the helicopters inside the compound and conduct a mortar attack, destroying four of the AH-64 Apaches."

I'm not sure that geotagging is the real problem here. A picture of a new helicopter or of the inside of a military base in a war zone is sensitive operational information that should not be posted to the internet, whether it's geotagged or not. Enemy intelligence services could probably piece together lots of valuable information from dozens of seemingly innocuous photos.

For example, even if the enemy couldn't blow up those helicopters, just knowing the number of helicopters available at that base, or that the base had received additional helicopters, could be an advantage in planning an attack.

Well not exactly the same. While you may be able to determine some basic relative positioning information just from looking at the picture, it's not the same as having the actual GPS coordinates. While you could do some perspective math plus relative positioning to known other locations to figure a rough estimate of an object it would require a fairly expert knowledge to get to the coordinates for your mortar. With GPS it's much easier for someone with far less expertise to come up with a position.

Point taken that there is important information you could get from a picture alone. There's lots of other information they posses that GPS doesn't, and vice versa.

Not to downplay the real security concerns, but the mortar attack from geotagged photos almost certainly did not happen.

Here is a March 2012 post from a skeptic about the mortar story: http://www.spacerogue.net/wordpress/?m=201203

It's also worth noting that there are no contemporary 2007 accounts of the incident. The wikipedia listing of aircraft losses in the Iraq War lists contemporary sources for every incident except for this four helicopter attack -- Wikipedia lists the 2012 geotagging source Steve Warren. This is the Internet though, so I'll email Mr. Warren and see if I can get his citation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and...

I think this might be a good argument for anonymity on the internet.

The thing is, if you're traveling in hostile territory, it's probably a good idea to maintain a low profile. Isn't it taught to be aware of your surrounding at all times? Basically, reveal your location digitally with the same consideration you would in meatspace. If you wouldn't launch a flare to tell people your location, don't broadcast your location digitally.

I think most people in the armed forces understand this, though there are apparently exceptional cases.

Also it should be noted they launched mortars at grounded helicopters, from what I can tell no one was killed, and the compound's location was probably already known. So this could have been inadvertently beneficial to both parties (mortars weren't launched randomly hitting barracks, killing people etc).

Edit: Now that I think about it, if I was in charge of soldier security I would probably increase the noise - use fake accounts, fake locations, with similar data context. I could even fool the opposing forces into maneuvering into positions they could be captured peacefully.

Surely in a disciplined army only those instructed to do so or given a special permission are allowed to take photos, nevermind allowing free access to upload at will and without security oversight.

Do they allow soldiers to send up fireworks whenever they fancy too?

Surely enemey can use triangulation to track mobile phone signals; sniff images, calls and texts off the air and such?

What's interesting to me is that geotagging is seen as dangerous, and yet it's the act of making geotagged photographs available online that's the real issue.

Maybe an enterprising solution is for an Army hacker to create an app that strips out EXIF data from images, and then facilitates uploads to the user's site of choice.

To be safer, whitelist, not blacklist. Hr program should analyze a photo, and emit a new graphical image computed from then original's color data only, and not pass through any metadata.

What is the minimum noise intensity/spectrum to remove sensor fingerprint?

I'm in the Israeli army now, guess I may need to cut down on my foursquare checkins... (1,000+ so far)

i always wondered if there's some kind of social network policy while browsing all these 'idf' tagged instagram pictures. i guess not.

I think Facebook strips EXIF metadata from uploaded photos, so unless you deliberately add a location tag, it shouldn't really be possible to retrieve a location given a photo.

It's what Bruce Schneier calls Security Theater, or movie plot threats, with a dash of "beware, the enemy is always listening", and self-proclaimed security experts to hint at vague threats from terrorists.

It's true that there are privacy issues with geotagging, facebook profiles. But the military and the para-military need their FUD to keep the money flowing.

You don't think there are people out there who shouldn't have their position known to the world in real time?

Really? It's security theater to disable geotagging?

1. The first part talks about disabling geotagging for deployed soldiers in classified locations, and gives an example where geotagging allegedly led to a morter attack and materiel losses,

2. The second part talks about disabling geotagging at home if you are worried about your safety. These are not hypothetical risks: imagine an ex-boyfriend with a constant stream of your GPS coordinates through social media.

Ok, I'll give the first point a maybe.

As to the second point, the risk is overblown (but yes, geotagging is stalker heaven). But, when to make a point, the expert says:

   "Do you really want everyone to know the exact location of your home or your children's school?" Sweetnam said.

We're in the "who will think of the children?" territory (for another take on geotagging threats, for civilian this time: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/02/dumb_risk_of_t...)

Two third of the article are not about the alleged helicopter incident, they're about ramping up the paranoia in the besieged homeland.

His comment isn't wholly unjustified. If you take a photograph of helicopters in a military base, it is plausible (possibly even likely) that someone familiar with the area could figure out their location purely by looking at the photo - based on the background content of the photograph.

The point you could make is that if you're worried about people figuring out where you are, you probably shouldn't publish photos of your location on the internet.

In the article, the author gives a specific example of how geotagged photos led to an attack that destroyed four helicopters (which are spendy). There are lots of examples of security theater in our society; this isn't one of them. Seems like a very real concern, for military personnel in particular.

> There are a number of location-based social media applications and platforms, including Foursquare, Gowalla, SCVNGR, Shopkick, Loopt and Whrrl, currently on the market.

Well, Whrrl and Gowalla are no longer, so no.

Wow, someone in .mil remembers Whrrl? They really are always fighting then last war...

"Army: Water found to be wet"

"The US Army discovers a bear shitting in the woods"

This is incredibly, painfully obvious. Why is it on HN?

I can think of a couple of reasons why this audience might find the article useful. First, a number of folks here are brainstorming startups and the fact that GEO information is available in EXIF data and on the phone in general is an attractive thing. Two, this article includes a documented case of the GPS data being used against the army (mortar attack) which, if you read HN regularly, someone says "Don't use GPS data, you could get someone killed." and then someone will comment 'citation needed' and there will be the whole silly "Gee don't do that if you don't want" kind of argument. When the real discussion should be "Your customers might not realize the consequences of this, you need to be aware of them."

So for those reasons I think its a useful thing for entrepreneurs to keep in their thought processes.

"This time its different!" </irony>

Reply on news.ycombinator.com