By Peter Cochrane, 2 March 2009 00:00
COMMENT
Compiled in San Francisco Airport having observed a young man 'cruising' computer screens in the gate area. Dispatched the next day from San Diego via a free hotel LAN
During the past 12 months or so I have become increasingly aware of people 'cruising' airport lounges, concourses and trains. They walk up and down the aisles, generally acting strangely in public places where laptop and other personal screens are in use.
In every case they have seemingly been texting on their mobile phone but on closer inspection I think they have been taking photographs and making movies.
As far as I can see this activity is largely the domain of youngish men, and we might suspect they are taking photos of unsuspecting pretty females. But I think the real reason is more sinister. I reckon they are collecting screenshots in the hope of capturing some useful information. I also suspect they are making movies of keystrokes at some distance.
The use of miniature cameras as the tool of the spy is well understood and documented. Now we have a new opportunity to get up close and personal with the silent and effective camera embedded in every mobile phone.
What a way of gleaning strangers' passwords, account numbers and much more. In the security and hacker communities, this is probably recognised and well understood but the general public are oblivious.
There is now only one question to ask: how effective is it? And only one way to find out: try it!
For several weeks I have been opportunistically taking pictures of screens whenever and wherever I can. The objective has been to establish the quality of the pics and what one might be able to read or discern from them.
My first big surprise was the sheer number of unattended screens out there. The second was how easy it was to take shots without being detected or raise suspicion. The third was just how close you can get to people without them even noticing your presence, let alone the fact you have a mobile phone peeking over their shoulder.
The pics below give an idea of what is possible with a modest 2MP mobile phone camera at a short distance under normal lighting conditions - without a flash of course.
Did I get any interesting info? That's a secret. What I can reveal is that a slightly more expensive, 6MP handheld camera results in significantly better results at a slightly longer distance from the target. But of course, you have to go to greater lengths to disguise what you are really up to. Even more interesting are the results using a 10MP camera and a telephoto lens. See below:

Impressive or what? In my view you would have to take an awful lot of pictures, and make a lot of movies, before you got lucky. But if you are a criminal then it's all in a day's work, and if you get a hit or two, what then? Well, your guess is as good as mine.
So it's back to people-watching for me, and an attempt to estimate how many of these snappers there are.
Oh, on a matter of security: All the original pics (and there were an awful lot) taken during this experiment and the material recovered have been deleted and there is no record of location or subject. Also, I am not about to release the technical data and practical experiences that saw an improved data recovery rate with time.
But here's a teaser. Look at the resolution of the (estimated 16 point) text recovered by a good quality camera and lens at quite a distance.
Finally, let me just say that you should cover your fingers when entering a PIN or password in a public place. And if you are going to read sensitive or private information on a screen, look over your shoulder first!



Comments
There are 9 comments. Join the discussion
1. Richard
Is someone buying this?
It is hard to believe that an individual crook, working alone, could gain much from such activities.
- Is this information being bought & collated by organised criminals (or others?).
- Are particular people being "targeted" or do the "watchers" simply assume that "valuable targets" will pass through those areas?
2. Jeremy Wickins
Interesting you mention this, Peter, as I was watching several youngish men who were behaving in this way at a European airport the other day, and I had come to the same conclusion as you. Is it a relatively new phenomenon, or has it merely reached such a level that the behaviour pattern stands out?
3. Peter Cochrane
Richard = The individuals are running at low % of success. BUT across the planet via the internet and criminal networks it becomes entirely feasible.
By the way a lot of the photographic examples have been omitted here due to some editorial error. They should be loaded shortly. Standby!
As soon as you see what i could do 'casually' I think you will see the potential.
Peter
4. Peter Cochrane
Jeremy = The use of good quality cameras and powerful lenses has been a standard technique for a very long time.
I became aware of the mobile phone camera threat some years ago, but only recently have I wised up to it actually happening around me.
See my response to Richard: I think this is most likely virtual teams connected via the web. I have yet to figure out the full potential here!
Peter
5. Barbara Baxter
Several things concern me about the potential for harm from these phishers. I do believe they are out there. Just ask any school teacher or business administrator what kind of damage can be done with a cell phone. As for airport security, I think the discretion given to individual inspectors is far too generous, and that's based on my discovery that the difference between "liquid" and "non-liquid" (or whatever they call it) cost me a bundle when an inspector threw out am expensive 4 oz. bottle of perfumed cream I'd splurged on for a romantic getaway...I think she wanted to retrieve it for herself later. Well, that's another story...
Barbara
6. Karen Challinor
I'm so glad the photo's have been reinstated the article makes a lot more sense now
7. Peter Cochrane
Barbara = And now they are going to change the rules on fluids! What a waste all round. Peter
8. Peter Cochrane
Karen = My regular editor was away and there was a bit of a snafu. Anyway - it got corrected - and I'm pleased to say it is now a lot more coherent! Peter
9. Peter Cochrane
Barbara = And now they are going to change the rules on fluids! What a waste all round. Peter